UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  PUBLICATIONS. 


COLLEGE  OF  AGRICULTURE. 

AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATION. 


GRASSHOPPERS  IN  CALIFORNIA 


By  C.  W.  WOODWORTH. 


Young  Grasshopper  on  Blade  of  Grass. 
(Slightly  enlarged). 


BULLETIN  No.  142 

(Berkeley,  August,  1902.) 


SACRAMENTO : 
:      :      :      superintendent  state  printing. 
1902. 


BENJAMIN  IDE  WHEELER,  Ph.D.,  LL.D.,  President  of  the  University. 

EXPERIMENT  STATION  STAFF. 
E.  W.  HILGARD,  Ph.D.,  LL.D.,  Director  and  Chemist. 

E.  J.  WICKSON,  M.A.,  Horticulturist,  and  Superintendent  of  Central  Station  Grounds. 
W.  A.  SETCHELL,  Ph.D.,  Botanist. 

R.  H.  LOUGHRIDGE,  Ph.D.,  Agricultural  Geologist  and  Soil  Physicist.    (Soils  and  Alkali.) 
C.  W.  WOODWORTH,  M.S.,  Entomologist. 
*M.  E.  JAFFA,  M.S.,  Assistant  Chemist.    (Foods,  Fertilizers.) 
G.  W.  SHAW,  M.A.,  Ph.D.,  Assistant  Chemist.    (Soils,  Beet-Sugar.) 
GEORGE  E.  COLBY,  M.S.,  Assistant  Chemist.    (Fruits,  Waters,  Insecticides.) 
LEROY  ANDERSON,  M.S.A.,  Animal  Industries,  San  Luis  Obispo. 
A.  R.  WARD,  B.S.A.,  D.V.M.,  Veterinarian,  Bacteriologist. 
E.  H.  TWIGHT,  B.Sc.,DiplomeE.A.M.,  Viticulturist. 
E.  W.  MAJOR,  B.Agr.,  Dairy  Husbandry. 

A.  V.  STQBENRAUCH,  M.S.,  Assistant  Horticulturist  and  Superintendent  of  Substations. 
*  J.  BURTT  DAVY,  Assistant  Botanist. 
H.  M.  HALL,  M.S.,  Assistant  Botanist. 
W.  T.  CLARKE,  Assistant  Entomologist. 
C.  A.  COLMORE,  B.S.,  Clerk  to  the  Director. 


EMIL  KELLNER,  Foreman  of  Central  Station  Grounds. 

JOHN  TUOHY,  Patron,  ) 

y  Tulare  Substation,  Tulare. 
JULIUS  FORRER,  Foreman,  ) 

R.  C.  RUST,  Patron,  ) 

y  Foothill  Substation,  Jackson. 
JOHN  H.  BARBER,  Foreman,  ) 

S.  D.  MERK,  Patron,  ) 

y  Coast  Range  Substation,  Paso  Robles. 
J.  H.  OOLEY,  Workman  in  charge,  ) 

S.  N.  ANDROUS,  Patron,  )  (  Pomona. 

y  Southern   California  Substation,   ■{ 
J.  W.  MILLS,  Foreman,      )  (  Ontario. 

V.  C.  RICHARDS,  Patron,         ) 

y  Forestry  Station,  Chico. 
T.  L.  BOHLENDER,  in  charge,  ) 

ROY  JONES,  Patron,      ) 

y  Forestry  Station,  Santa  Monica. 
WM.  SHUTT,  Foreman,  \ 

*  Absent  on  leave. 


The  Station  publications  (Reports  and  Bulletins)  will  be  sent  to  any 
citizen  of  the  State  on  application,  so  long  as  available. 


CONTENTS. 


Page. 

INTRODUCTION 5 

GRASSHOPPERS  THIS  YEAR 6 

At  Roseville;  at  Fair  Oaks _ 6 

Attempted  State  work 9 

NEED  OF  LEGISLATIVE  ACTION 10 

THE  INSECTS  CONCERNED 11 

Insects  falsely  called  locust 11 

True  locust  and  their  relatives  _ _ 12 

Blattidre;    Forficulidse ;    Phasmidae;    Mantidse;    Gryllidse;    Locustidee; 

Acrididse ._ 12 

GRASSHOPPERS  IN  FORMER  YEARS 19 

LIFE  HISTORY .. 21 

Breeding-grounds  in  California  ... 21 

Drifting 22 

Migration 23 

REMEDIES 24 

Control  of  flying  swarms  24 

Driving;  Poisons _ 24 

Control  of  drifting  swarms 26 

Barriers;   Smudging;   Sacking;   Plowing-in ;   Poisons;   The  use  of  the  hop- 
per-dozer  _ __ _.  26 

Control  in  breeding-grounds __ _ _ 30 

Plowing;  Burning;  Hopper-dozers ._ 30 

Complete  control 33 

A  plan  for  State  action _  34 

Hopper  reporters ;  Competent  inspection  ;  Supervision  ;  Local  authority ; 

State  authority _ _._ 34 

The  plan  in  brief ._ 36 


GRASSHOPPERS  IN  CALIFORNIA. 


Grasshoppers  or  locusts  have,  during  the  last  season,  caused  a  great 
deal  of  alarm  in  the  minds  of  fruit-growers  in  this  State,  though  the 
losses  sustained  have  not  been  particularly  large.  Hoppers  were  mod- 
erately abundant  over  a  very  large  area,  including  both  sides  of  the 
Sacramento  and  San  Joaquin  valleys;  and  in  southern  California  in  a 
few  places  in  Santa  Barbara  and  Ventura  counties  and  in  the  hill 
regions  of  San  Diego  County.  The  presence  of  considerable  numbers 
of  hoppers  over  such  a  large  extent  of  territory  in  a  single  season  is 
quite  remarkable.  The  actual  numbers  present  in  each  of  these  regions 
was  a  great  deal  less  than  had  been  known  in  previous  years.  Had  the 
numbers  been  as  great  as  they  have  formerly  been  in  all  these  same 
regions,  the  total  amount  of  injury  would  have  been  enormous. 

It  is  not  known  exactly  what  the  conditions  are  that  have  favored 
the  unusual  increase  of  hoppers  this  year,  but  in  every  region  where 
migratory  locusts  are  prevalent  this  same  sudden  increase  in  seasons 
favorable  to  them  is  the  common  experience.  The  increase  of  the 
insects  this  year  simply  emphasizes  the  fact  that  California  is  one  of 
the  regions  where  the  conditions  are  favorable  to  migratory  locusts.  In 
every  part  of  the  world  where  there  is  an  arid  climate,  where  grass- 
covered  highlands  exist  with  neighboring  cultivated  lowlands,  migratory 
locusts  abound  and  do  injury,  the  extent  of  which  depends  primarily 
upon  the  season  but  also  upon  the  extent  of  this  bare  arid  upland 
country,  and  upon  its  proximity  to  the  cultivated  lands. 

The  open  pasture  lands  in  California  are  very  widely  scattered  over 
the  State  and  are  in  the  aggregate  quite  extensive,  though  very  insig- 
nificant as  compared  with  those  on  the  other  side  of  the  Rocky 
Mountains.  While  we  will  not,  for  this  reason,  expect  as  great  grass- 
hopper migrations  as  have  occurred  there,  still  our  orchards  and  vine- 
yards are  each  year  coming  closer  and  closer  to  the  breeding-grounds. 
These  interests  can  be  so  seriously  injured  by  grasshoppers  that  the 
question  of  grasshopper  control  is  even  now  a  matter  of  extreme  impor- 
tance, the  solution  of  which  is  becoming  more  and  more  imperative. 

Change  of  Law  Imperative. — We  will  attempt  in  this  bulletin  to  pre- 
sent a  review  of  the  present  knowledge  of  the  hopper  situation  in  this 
State,  and  to  show  that  there  is  ground  for  believing  that  the  danger 
from  this  insect  could  be  almost  entirely  avoided  if  the  proper  pro- 


6 


UNIVERSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT    STATION. 


visions  were  made  for  the  study  of  the  problem  and  for  the  carrying-out 
of  a  sound  general  policy  in  accordance  with  the  facts  so  determined. 
At  the  present  time  the  laws  are  such  as  to  really  prevent  any  concerted 
action;  and  no  one  has  the  exact  knowledge  of  the  breeding-grounds  or 
the  habits  of  the  insects  there,  to  intelligently  direct  such  action.  This 
year's  experience  has  indicated  very  clearly  the  needs  of  a  hopper 
investigation  and  control. 


GRASSHOPPERS    THIS    YEAR. 

About  the  first  of  June  reports  of  injury  were  received  from  several 
widely  separated  regions.  In  the  lower  San  Joaquin  Valley  the  grass- 
hoppers had  already  begun  to  obtain  wings,  but  there  was  no  true 
migration;  indeed,  nowhere  this  year  has  there  been  serious  injury  from 
migratory  swarms,  the  whole  work  being  done  by  drifting  swarms  in 
regions  immediately  adjacent  to  the  breeding-grounds.  The  hopper 
invasion  in  Sacramento  County  received  the  most  public  attention, 
though  the  greatest  injury  was  done  in  Fresno  and  Tulare  counties. 

Grasshoppers  at  Roseville. — The  Placer  County  swarm  was  first  inves- 
tigated by  W.  T.  Clarke,  assistant  entomologist  of  this  Department,  who 

was  called  into  consultation  in 


Fig 


reference  to  the  injury  done  in 
the  vicinity  of  Roseville.  As 
a  result  of  his  studies  he  was 
able  to  show  that  the  orchards 
and  vineyards  adjacent  to  Rose- 
ville were  threatened  by  a  com- 
paratively small  swarm  which 
bred  in  the  pasture  lands  north 
and  east  of  town.  Fig.  1  illus- 
trates the  situation  at  the  time 
his  investigations  were  made. 
He  called  a  public  meeting  at 
Roseville  on  June  9th,  at  which 
he  urged  that  measures  be  at 
once  taken  to  attack  the  hopper 
upon  its  breeding-ground,  showing  that  in  this  way  the  whole 
situation  in  that  district  could  be  handled.  He  advised  the  use  of  the 
hopper-dozer  and  the  burning  of  a  very  narrow  strip  of  pasture  nearest 
the  cultivated  fields. 

Instead  of  doing  this  themselves,  the  parties  interested  finally 
decided  to  call  upon  the  county  horticultural  commissioners  to  order  the 
owners  of  the  infested  territory  to  suppress  the  hoppers.  This  the 
commissioners  did,  and  on  the  refusal  of  the  owners  they  prepared  to 
carry  out  the  plan  proposed  at  the  meeting.     Because  of  threats  that 


Map  showing  the  Roseville  Swarm  of 
Grasshoppers,  June  9, 1902. 


The  arrows  indicate  the  direction  taken  by  the 
hoppers. 


grasshoppers:  roseville  and  fair  oaks.  7 

were  made  they  first  sought  legal  advice,  and  learned  that  they  might 
be  personally  responsible  for  damages  to  the  burned  pastures.  There- 
upon they  very  naturally  refused  to  act.  According  to  the  advice 
obtained,  their  powers  in  the  matter  were  very  doubtful,  if  existing  at 
all;  and  thus  the  matter  rested,  with  nothing  done,  for  two  or  three 
weeks.  In  the  meantime  the  hoppers  continued  to  drift  over  the  culti- 
vated lands,  doing  scarcely  any  injury  to  grain  crops,  because  the  grain 
at  this  time  was  nearly  all  ripe,  but  destroying  some  vineyards  and 
isolated  orchard  trees,  the  owners  of  which,  as  a  general  thing,  did  not 
attempt  to  save  them  in  any  effective  way.  Fig.  2  will  show  how  com- 
pletely the  leaves  may  be  stripped  from  vines. 


Fig.  2.    Vineyard  Near  Roseville,  showing  Work  of  Grasshoppers. 
From  photograph  taken  in  Jane,  1902. 

Grasshoppers  at  Fair  Oaks. — The  next  point  at  which  hoppers 
caused  apprehension  in  this  district  was  in  the  vicinity  of  Fair  Oaks, 
in  Sacramento  County.  Here  the  hoppers  were  quite  numerous,  and 
threatened  to  do  a  great  deal  of  damage.  The  people  in  this  com- 
munity became  thoroughly  aroused,  and  at  a  series  of  public  meetings 
decided  that  the  adjacent  breeding-grounds  should  be  burned  over.  They 
appealed  to  the  County  Supervisors  for  power  to  do  this  work.  The 
prompt  and  decided  action  of  the  members  of  this  Board  showed  their 
public  spirit,  for  they  at  once  authorized  and  directed  the  people  owning 
the  threatened  orchards  to  undertake  the  matter.  This  action  was 
taken  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  there  was  considerable  doubt  as  to  the 
legality  of  the  action,  and  therefore  considerable  individual  risk  on  the 
part  of  the  Supervisors  for  suits  of  damage. 


h  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT    STATION. 

Work  in  this  region  was  greatly  facilitated  by  the  public  spirit  also 
of  one  of  the  largest  land-owners  of  that  district,  who  freely  consented 
to  the  destruction  of  the  grass  on  his  holdings.  A  large  area  in  this 
way  was  burned  over,  and  the  immediate  danger  to  the  orchards  of  Fair 
Oaks  and  Orangevale  was  entirely  overcome.  The  whole  community 
turned  out  to  do  this  work.  Fig.  3  shows  a  gang  of  men  with  hoes 
clearing  a  line  though  the  grass  preliminary  to  starting  a. fire. 

More  or  less  friction  occurred  in  some  of  the  districts  where  this  burn- 
ing was  done,  and  some  of  the  troubles  were  carried  into  court.  Because 
of  the  lack  of  careful  inspection  it  is  more  than  possible  that  burning  was 
done  over  a  great  deal  of  territory  on  which  there  was  not  sufficient 


Fig.  3.    The  Preparation  of  the  "Firing  Line"  in  this  Season's  Campaign. 

infestation  of  hoppers  to  justify  the  work.  It  is  almost  certain,  also, 
that  in  some  of  the  burning,  carelessness  resulted  in  losses  that  might 
have  been  entirely  avoided;  but  at  best,  burning  is  accompanied  by  more 
or  less  risk.  It  is  also  true  that  other  means,  as  for  instance  the  use  of 
the  hopper-dozer,  would  have  been  equally  effective  and  cheaper,  without 
the  loss  of  any  of  the  pasturage.  In  spite  of  all  these  criticisms  of  the  work 
in  Sacramento  County,  no  one  who  was  conversant  with  the  situation 
there  this  summer  can  have  any  doubt  that  great  loss  to  the  fruit 
interests  of  that  part  of  the  county  was  avoided  by  these  measures. 

The  inadequacy  of  the  laws  now  in  existence  to  meet  an  invasion  of 
hoppers  is  very  clearly  shown;  for  it  is  doubtful  if  another  Board  of 
Supervisors  could  be  found  in  the  State  that  would  have  the  temerity 


grasshoppers:  state  work.  y 

to  take  the  matter  in  its  own  hands,  as  was  done  in  Sacramento  County; 
and  without  such  boldness  absolutely  nothing  could  be  done  concertedly 
under  our  present  law. 

Attempted  State  Work. — After  the  ground  in  the  neighborhood  of  Fair 
Oaks  and  Orangevale  had  been  burned  over,  the  people  in  those  com- 
munities very  naturally  began  to  be  somewhat  alarmed  by  the  possibility 
of  flying  swarms  from  the  immediately  adjacent  breeding-grounds  of 
Placer  and  El  Dorado  counties.  A  committee  of  Supervisors  of  Sacra- 
mento County,  together  with  the  District  Attorney,  held  conferences 
with  the  Supervisors  of  these  two  adjacent  counties,  and  urged  them  in 
the  strongest  possible  manner  to  take  similar  action  in  their  respective 
districts.  The  Supervisors  of  neither  of  these  counties  saw  fit  to  take 
the  action  desired,  so  nothing  along  this  line  could  be  accomplished. 
If  the  hoppers  had  been  slightly  more  abundant,  so  that  there  might 
have  been  flying  swarms,  there  is  quite  a  possibility  that  these  orchards 
in  the  Fair  Oaks  and  Orangevale  colonies  would  have  been  destroyed  in 
spite  of  the  very  energetic  and  expensive  work  that  was  done  for  their 
protection  in  their  immediate  neighborhood. 

Failing  to  accomplish  anything  in  these  counties,  the  Supervisors  of 
Sacramento  County  appealed  to  the  State  Board  of  Horticulture  to 
exercise  what  power  they  imagined  might  rest  in  the  State  Board  to 
defend  Sacramento  County  from  the  hoppers  of  Placer  and  El  Dorado 
counties.  The  State  Board  of  Horticulture  could  do  nothing,  because 
the  law  creating  this  board  is  so  framed  as  to  expressly  prevent  it.  This 
has  been  repeatedly  so  decided  by  attorneys,  and  is  in  accord  with  the 
advice  of  the  Attorney-General  of  the  State. 

Being  unable  to  do  anything  but  to  recognize  the  importance  of  the 
matter,  the  members  of  the  Board  residing  at  Sacramento,  together  with 
the  chairman  of  the  Board  of  Supervisors  of  Sacramento  County, 
appealed  personally  to  the  Governor  to  use  the  power  which,  in  the 
opinion  of  the  Attorney-General,  rested  alone  in  the  Chief  Executive  of 
the  State.  The  Governor,  after  carefully  considering  the  matter,  sug- 
gested to  the  members  of  the  State  Board  of  Horticulture  that  they 
undertake  the  burning  of  the  breeding-grounds  in  these  Counties,  after 
first  securing  from  the  owners  a  contract  permitting  the  work  to  be  done, 
the  Governor  agreeing  to  recommend  to  the  Legislature  a  bill  appro- 
priating an  amount  not  to  exceed  $10,000  to  reimburse  those  whose 
grounds  were  thus  burned  over.  It  seemed  to  all  parties  of  the  confer- 
ence that  this  action  would  accomplish  all  that  was  necessary,  it  being 
believed  that  even  though  the  consent  of  part  of  the  owners  of  pasture 
lands  could  not  be  obtained,  still  sufficient  work  could  be  done  to 
decrease  the  number  of  hoppers  to  a  point  where  the  probability  of  fly- 
ing swarms  would  be  very  slight.  This  measure  was  never  carried  out, 
owing  to  the   legal   advice  to  the  effect  that  in  case  the  State  Board 


10  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION. 

ordered  work  to  be  done  under  this  arrangement,  the  individual  mem- 
bers would  be  responsible  for  any  accidental  fires  that  might  result  from 
the  burning  of  these  lands. 

While  these  various  propositions  were  being  discussed,  the  hoppers 
were  growing  and  obtaining  their  wings,  and  had,  to  quite  a  large  extent, 
left  their  breeding-grounds;  and  were  drifting  in  adjacent  stubble  fields 
and  occasionally  injuring  orchard  property.  They  had  reached  a  point 
where  the  burning  of  the  breeding-grounds  would  have  but  little  effect. 
We  therefore  advised  those  who  were  still  trying  to  find  a  way  to  get 
the  work  done,  that  it  would  then  be  of  doubtful  utility,  and  the  effort 
ceased.  The  fighting  of  the  drifting  swarms  was  taken  up  with  con- 
siderable success.  Commonly  it  was  necessary  to  go  into  the  fields,  do 
the  work,  and  get  results,  before  the  growers  in  a  community  would  try 
to  help  themselves  in  an  effective  way. 

Fortunately,  as  has  already  been  said,  flying  swarms  did  not  occur 
this  year,  so  that  the  total  injury  resulting  was  in  the  immediate  neigh- 
borhood of  the  breeding-grounds.  It  is  doubtful  if,  in  this  year,  any 
considerable  numbers  of  hoppers  crossed  county  lines,  but  if  there  had 
been  flying  swarms,  the  need  of  State  control  would  have  been  still 
more  evident. 

NEED  OF  LEGISLATIVE  ACTION. 

The  account  just  given  of  the  grasshopper  situation  this  year,  clearly 
brings  out  the  necessity  for  concerted  action,  for  providing  the  means  of 
securing  greater  knowledge  of  the  insect,  and  for  adequate  laws  to  deal 
with  the  hoppers  in  years  when  they  are  really  highly  injurious. 
There  is  no  doubt  whatever  that  each  succeeding  grasshopper-year  will 
bring  the  need  of  community  action,  and  a  demand  for  it  that  can  not 
be  denied.  Orchard  interests  are  too  great  to  permit  the  destruction  of 
any  considerable  areas  of  growing  trees  or  vines  when  there  is  any  hope 
that  by  prompt  action  these  losses  can  be  greatly  decreased  or  entirely 
avoided.  If  left  to  go  on  as  it  is,  there  will  be  the  demand  on  the  part 
of  the  fruit-growers  each  hopper-year  that  infected  pasture  land  be 
burned  over,  and  this  burning  may  at  times  cause  more  actual  loss  than 
the  saving  through  the  destruction  of  the  hoppers.  It  will  be  as  much 
to  the  interest  of  the  owner  of  pasture  lands  as  of  the  orchardists,  that 
the  matter  be  settled  now,  and  settled  right.  The  things  to  be  done  to 
bring  this  about  are,  first,  to  provide  for  obtaining  the  facts  relative  to 
the  location  of  the  breeding-grounds,  and  the  habits  of  the  various 
species  of  locusts;  second,  the  securing  each  year  of  enough  information 
to  allow  the  use  of  the  most  economical  means  for  the  destruction  of  the 
hoppers,  and  for  provision  for  compensating  those  whose  property  it 
may  be  necessary  to  injure  in  the  work;  and,  third,  careful  and  com- 


grasshoppers:  insects  concerned. 


11 


petent  supervision  of  every  general  effort  communities  may  desire  to 
make  for  their  protection.  The  details  for  this  work  will  be  presented 
at  the  close  of  this  bulletin. 


THE    INSECTS   CONCERNED. 

The  name  grasshopper  or  locust  is  applied  to  a  large  number  of 
insects,  many  of  which  have  never  been  of  much  economic  significance. 
Usually  the  really  destructive  locusts  in  any  country  belong  to  a  single 
species.  In  California  generally  one  species  will  greatly  predominate  in  a 
swarm,  though  usually  our  swarms  are  not  confined  to  a  single  kind.  In 
some  seasons  one  species  will  become  abundant,  and  in  another  a  second 
may  be  the  most  common ;  and  during  the  same  season  one  species  may 
do  injury  over  one  section  of  the  State,  while  a  different  species  prevails 
elsewhere.  During  the  past  season  at  least  half  a  dozen  different  kinds 
did  injury  in  some  part  of  the  State.  Other  kinds  which  were  not 
troublesome  this  season  have  been  destructive  in  former  years.  The 
situation  is  thus  very  complicated,  because  these  different  kinds  of  grass- 
hoppers have  quite  different  habits  and  peculiarities,  and  will  require 
somewhat  different  conditions  to  develop  them  into  destructive  num- 
bers. All  of  them  must  be  carefully  studied  to  make  our  knowledge 
extensive  enough  to  plan  for  their  best  control. 

Insects  Falsely  Called  Locusts. — A  great  deal  of  misunderstanding 
arose  this  year  in  regard  to  the  habits  of  the  grasshoppers,  on  account  of 
the  confusing  of  this  insect  with  another  and  entirely  different  creature 
found  only  in  the  Eastern  States,  to  which  the  name  locust  is  commonly 
though  incorrectly  applied.  The  so-called  "17-year  locust"  of  the 
Eastern  States  is  a  sap-sucking  insect,  the  young  of  which  feeds  on  the 
juices  of  the  roots  of  plants  and  requires  seventeen  years  for  full  devel- 
opment.    The  sudden  appearance  of  the  adults  of  this  insect  doubtless 

suggested   to  the    Puritan   fathers   who   had  

never  lived  in  a  country  subject  to  locust 
invasions,  that  this  creature  was  the  locust  of 
the  Bible.  At  any  rate,  in  no  other  country 
is  the  term  locust  applied  to  any  member  of 
the  order  to  which  it  belongs. 

In  California  we  have  a  couple  of  rather 
common  members  of  the  family  Cicadidse,  the 
harvest  fly  family,  to  which  the  so-called  17- 
year  locust  belongs.  These  are  illustrated  in 
Fig.  4.  The  larger  species  belongs  to  the 
same  genus  as  the  seventeen-year  species,  but 

as  far  as  we  know  both  our  species  require  but  a  single  year   for  their 
full  development. 


Flg.  4.    Harvest  Flies. 

(A)  Platypedia  areolata  Uhl. 

(B)  Tibicen  rimosa  Say. 


12 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT    STATION. 


Ovipositor 


Pulnllui 
Tarsus >  Claw  ■ 
6 furs 
Pro-    Neso-  /YeUCtiordi 


True  Locusts  and  Their  Relatives. — The  only  insects  that  have  any 
right  to  the  name  locust  or  grasshopper  belong  to  the  order  Orthoptera. 
These  two  names  are  usually  applied  interchangeably  to  all  the  members 
of  the  family  Acrididae  and  to  such  members  of  other  families  as  are 
not  clearly  distinguished  from  them,  by  people  in  general.  Indeed,  some 
of  the  members  of  the  family  Locustidae  seem  to  have  almost  earned  the 
name  by  living  and  feeding  in  company  with  grasshoppers  and  doing 
the  same  sort  of  injury. 

We  give  below  a  list  of  all  the  kinds  of  grasshoppers  known  to  exist 
in  the  State,  together  with  the  other  members  of  the  Order.  The  differ- 
ences between  the 
different  kinds  are 
also  given  in  the  form 
of  synopses,  for  the 
benefit  of  any  who 
may  wish  to  study 
grasshoppers  care- 
fully and  who  desire 
to  determine  their 
names.  Most  of  the 
technical  terms  it 
was  necessary  to  use 
are  shown  on  Fig.  5. 
The  work  of  finding 
these  names  will  be  much  easier  if  one  first  makes  quite  a  collection  of 
these  insects  so  as  to  be  able  to  make  comparisons. 

The  families  of  Orthoptera  may  be  distinguished  as  follows*: 

Body  as  thick  as  broad,  (a) ;  -flattened.  Ending  in  a  pincer  behind,  Forjiculidx;  -not, 
Blattidse.  —(a)  Hind  legs  enlarged  for  leaping,  (6) ;  -not.  Front  legs  enlarged  for  grasp- 
ing, Mantidss;  -not,  Phasmidse.  — (6)  Antennae  shorter  than  the  body,  Acrididx; 
-longer.    Feet  four-jointed,  Locustidse;  -three-jointed,  Gryllidse. 

BLATTiDiE. — Cockroaches  are  great  pests  indoors,  but,  except  in  the 
more  northern  part  of  the  State,  are  rather  rare  insects.  Many  tropical 
species  often  come  here  in  banana  bunches,  but  do  not  long  survive  in 
this  climate.  Only  four  species  have  been  recorded  in  this  State,  dis- 
tinguishable as  follows: 

All  the  femora  strongly  spined  beneath,  Stylopyga  orientalis  Linn,  -front  femora 
almost  devoid  of  spines  beneath,  Blatta  germanica  Linn.  (Fig.  5,  A);  -none  spined 
beneath.    Winged,  Planchora  hyalina  Saus.  ?  -wingless,  Cryptocercus  punctulatus  Scud. 


of  Mate 

Pldtc  Proiternal  dpine 

Fig.  5.    Schisticeka  venusta  Scud.,  The  Largest  of  the 
Injurious  Species  This  Year. 


*  These  synopses  are  to  be  used  as  follows:  Suppose  one  would  determine  the  family 
name  of  a  cricket.  He  reads  the  first  character,  and  as  the  body  is  as  thick  as  broad, 
he  goes  to  section  —(a),  and  as  the  hind  legs  are  enlarged  for  leaping,  goes  to  —(b),  and 
as  the  antennae  are  longer  than  the  body  and  the  feet  are  three-jointed,  he  arrives  at 
the  family  name  Gryllidse. 


grasshoppers:  insects  concerned. 


13 


Forficulid^e. — Earwigs  are  credited  with  injury  to  flowers  in  other 
countries,  but  have  not  caused  complaint  here.  They  live  in  damp 
situations  and  feed  mainly  on  decaying  vegetation.  We  have  two 
species:  Sphingolabis  cali- 
fornica  Dohrn  (Fig.  6,  B) 
and  txniata  Dohrn,  the 
latter  possessing  oblique 
ridges  on  the  second  ab- 
dominal segment  above. 


Fig.  6.    Orthoptera  that  Do  Not  Hop. 
(A)  Blatta    germanica    Linn.      (B)  Sphingolabis    californica 


Dohrn,  young.   (C)  Litaneutria  pacijica  Scud.,  young. 


Phasmid^e.  —  "Walking 
sticks"  feed  on  vegetation 
in  much  the  same  way  as 

grasshoppers,  but  can  not  leap  nor  migrate,  being  wingless.  The  eggs 
are  dropped  loosely  on  the  ground.  We  have  two  species:  Sermyle 
arbuscula  Rehn.  and  Timema  calif ornicum  Scud.,  the  latter  distinguished 
by  possessing  two  spines  between  the  eyes. 

Mantid^e. — Mantids  feed  on  other  insects,  which  they  capture  by 
means  of  their  greatly  developed  front  legs.  They  will  eat  each  other 
so  readily  that  they  never  become  abundant  enough  to  be  of  much 
service  in  killing  injurious  insects.  The  two  species  recorded  as  occurring 
here  are  Litaneutria  pacijica  Scud.   (Fig.  6,  C)  and  obscura  Scud.,  the 

£^^_  latter  distinguished  by  having 

Bx2^  v     a   large  black   spot   near   the 
base  of  the  hind  wing. 

Gryllid^e. — Crickets  are  not 
very  abundant  in  California, 
though  some  species  do  occa- 
sionally become  quite  abun- 
dant locally.  Some  of  the 
swarms  called  in  former  years 
grasshoppers,  were  really  crickets,  and  often  wingless  grasshoppers  are 
called  crickets.  The  following  tables  will  enable  one  to  distinguish  our 
species: 

Front  legs  suited  for  digging,  (a);  -not.  Body  subspherical,  Myrmecophila  formica- 
rum  Scud,  -much  longer  than  broad.  Hind  tibise  saw-toothed  between  the  spines, 
(Ecanthus  calif ornicus  Scud.  -not.  Spurs  on  hind  tibiae  movable,  Nemobius;  -fixed. 
Ear  on  front  leg  large,  Gryllus;  -small  or  wanting,  Myogryllus  sicarius  Scud.  — (a)  Two 
ocelli,  Gryllotalpa  cultriger  Uhl.  -three,  Tridactylus. 

Tridactylus.    Length  over  5.5  mm.,  apicalis  Say.;  -less,  minutus  Scud.  (Fig.  7,  B). 

Nemobius.  Hind  wings  long,  neomexicanus  Scud,  -wanting,  mexicanus  Walk.  (Fig. 
7,  A). 

Gryllus.  General  color  yellowish  brown,  assimilis  Fabr.  -blackish.  Front  wings 
yellowish  brown,  integer  Scud,  -black.  With  light-colored  shoulder  stripes,  vocalis 
Scud.  (Fig.  7,  C);  -without,  pennsylvanicus  Burm. 


Fig.  7.    Crickets. 

(A)  Nemobius  mexicanus  Walk.    (B)  Tridactylus  minutus 

Scud.     (C)  Gryllus  vocalis  Scud. 


14 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT    STATION. 


LocusTiDiE. — True  katydids,  those  possessing  wings  by  means  of  which 
the  males  produce  shrill  notes,  are  not  at  all  common  in  this  State,  but 
there  are  a  considerable  number  of  more  or  less  cricket-like  wingless 
forms.  Some  of  the  latter  are  found  in  company  with  true  grasshoppers, 
feeding  in  the  same  way  and  drifting  with  them  into  cultivated  fields. 
Occasionally  they  will  become  so  abundant  as  to  constitute  the  bulk  of 
the  swarms.  They  are  unable  to  migrate,  as  all  having  these  habits 
are  wingless.  Quite  a  number  of  these  insects  live  in  the  ground  like 
crickets,  the  largest  example  of  which  has  received  the  name  "potato 
bug"  by  many  growers,  on  account  of  its  injury  to  this  tuber.     The  egg- 


Fig.  8.    Katydids. 

(A)  Scudderia  furcifera  Scud.    (B)  Anabrus  simplex  Hald.     (C)  Ceuthophilus  pacificus  Thorn. 

(D)  A teloplus  notatus  Scud.     (E)  St 'enopelmatus  irregularis  Scud. 

laying  habits  are  very  different  in  the  various  members  of  the  family. 
Some  of  the  larger  winged  forms  arrange  their  eggs  in  two  regular  rows 
on  a  twig,  and  are  often  mistaken  for  some  strange  form  of  scale  insect. 
The  genera  occurring  in  California  may  be  distinguished  by  the  follow- 
ing tables : 

Wingless,  (c);  -with  short  useless  wings,  (6);  -with  wings  suitable  for  flight.  Hind 
tibiae  with  no  spines  on  inner  side,  (a) ;  -spines  present  on  both  sides.  Both  pair  of 
wings  equal  in  length,  Platylyra  californica  Scud,  -unequal,  Scudderia.  — (a)  Front  and 
middle  tibiae  with  spines  beneath,  Conocephalus  acutulus  Scud,  -unarmed.  Ovipositor 
straight  or  male  subgenital  plate  excavate,  Orchelimum  agile  DeG.  -ovipositor  curved  or 
plate  truncate,    Xiphidium.    —(b)  Prosternum   armed   with  two   spines,    Tropizaspis; 


grasshoppers:  insects  concerned.  15 

four  spines,  Capnobotes;  -unarmed.  Front  tibiae  spined  above  on  both  margins, 
Anabrxis  simplex  Hald.  (Fig.  8,  B);  -on  outer  margin  only.  Only  one  such  spine, 
Ateloplus  notatus  Scud.  (Fig.  8,  D);  -four  spines,  Clinopleura  melanopleura  Scud,  -three 
spines.  Lateral  carina?  of  pronotum  divergent  behind,  Idionotus  brunneus  Scud,  -sub- 
parallel,  Steiroxys  borealis  Scud,  -feebly  present  behind,  Idiostatus;  -entirely  wanting, 
Cacopteris.  — (c)  Pulvilli  wanting,  Stenopelmatus ;  -pulvilli  present.  Hind  tibioe  spined 
on  both  sides,  Tropidischia  xanthostoma  Scud,  -unarmed  beneath.  Front  tibiae  hollowed 
out  above,  Gammarotettix  bilobatus  Thorn,  -not  hollowed  out.  Palpi  long,  Ceuthophihis ; 
-short.  Third  joint  as  long  as  the  fifth,  Phrixocnemis  validus  Scud,  -shorter,  Udeopsylla 
nigra  Scud. 

Scudderia.  Hind  femora  nearly  as  long  as  the  wing,  mexicana  Saus.  -much  shorter, 
furcifera  Scud.  (Fig.  8,  A). 

Xiphidium.  Hind  femora  spinose  beneath,  spinosum  Scud.  -not.  Vertex  more  than 
half  as  wide  as  the  distance  between  the  eyes,  occidentale  Scud,  -less,  vicinum  Scud. 

Tropizaspis.  Lateral  carina?  of  pronotum  divergent  from  head  backward,  ovata  Scud, 
-converging  and  then  diverging.  Hind  femora  one  and  one  half  times  as  long  as  pro- 
notum, castanea  Scud,  -about  twice.  Pronotum  widest  far  behind  the  middle  of 
metazona,  steindachneri  Herm.  -scarcely  behind  middle,  diabolica  Hald. 

Cacopteris.  Pronotum  with  slight  lateral  carina?  behind,  femorata  Scud.  -none.  Pro- 
notum with  a  slight  posterior  sinus,  xqualis  Scud,  -none,  fuscopunctata  Scud. 

Capnobotes.  Metazona  considerably  elevated  above  prozona,  bruneri  Scud,  -scarcely, 
occidentalis  Thorn. 

Idiostatus.    Length  of  body  30  mm.,  bilineatus  Thorn.  -25  mm.,  hermani  Thorn. 

Ceuthophilus.  Hind  tibia?  strongly  arcuate,  (a);  -straight.  Front  femora  a  third  or 
more  longer  than  the  pronotum,  celatus  Scud,  -scarcely  longer.  Hind  femora  no  wider 
at  the  middle  than  at  the  base,  vinculatus  Scud,  -twice  as  wide,  californianus  Scud, 
—(a)  Middle  femora  with  a  long  spine  near  tip,  pacificus  Thom.  (Fig.  8,  C) ;  -short  spine 
or  none,  henshawi  Scud. 

Hemiudeopsylla.  Length  of  body  10.5  mm.,  californiana  Saus-Pict.  -18  mm.,  platyceps 
Saus-Pict. 

Stenopelmatus.  Hind  tibia?  with  three  spines  on  inner  margin  above,  pictus  Scud. 
-four,  histrio  Saus.  -five.  Hind  tibia?  about  twice  as  long  as  pronotum,  longispina  Brun. 
-about  one  and  one  half  times  as  long.  Apical  spine  on  inner  margin  above  of  hind 
tibia?  about  as  large  as  preceding,  oculatus  Scud,  -markedly  smaller.  Interspace 
between  spine  3  and  4  of  this  series  larger  than  between  others,  irregularis  Scud. 
(Fig.  8,  E);  -spines  equidistant,  californicus  Brun. 

Acrididte. — Grasshoppers  constitute  by  far  the  largest  family  in  the 
order  and  contain  the  most  injurious  species.  Five  subfamilies  are 
represented  in  California,  as  follows : 

Pronotum  extending  to  tip  of  abdomen,  Tettiginse;  -only  to  base  of  abdomen.  An- 
tenna? shorter  than  front  femora,  Mastacinse ;  -longer.  Prosternum  with  distinct  spine, 
Acridinx;  -unarmed.  Face  rounding  into  vertex,  or  if  slightly  angled  fovea?  of  vertex 
wanting,  (Edipodinse;  -angled  or  with  distinct  fovea?,  Truxalinx. 

Tettiginse. — Very  small  and  rare  grasshoppers  that  live  in  damp 
situations.  They  have  never  been  known  to  attack  cultivated  plants. 
Eight  species  are  known  in  California. 

Vertex  advanced  beyond  the  eyes,  (a) ;  -not.  Narrowed  anteriorly,  Telmotettix ;  -not, 
Paratettix.  —(a)  Vertex  wider  than  one  of  the  eyes,  Tettix  granulatus  Scud,  -equal, 
Merotettix  pristinus  Morse. 

Telmatettix.  Lower  angle  of  the  side  of  pronotum  acute,  aztecus  Saus.  (Fig.  9,  A); 
-obtuse.    Body  rather  coarsely  granulose,  aridis  Hanc.  -smooth,  hesperus  Morse. 

Paratettix.  Middle  femora  slightly  lobate  beneath,  morsei  Hanc.  -strongly.  Wings 
undeveloped,  toltecus  Bol.  -fully  developed,  mexicanus  Bol. 

Mastacinse. — This  subfamily  contains  a  single  recently  discovered 
rare  species,  Morsea  calif omica  Scud. 


16  UNIVERSITY    OF   CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT    STATION. 

Truxalinx. — None  of  the  members  of  this  subfamily  has  as  yet  been 
recognized  as  forming  any  important  part  of  a  destructive  swarm  in 
this  State.  Two  or  three  of  the  species  are  quite  common,  however, 
and  might  at  any  time  therefore  become  injurious. 

Top  of  head  strongly  bent  up  from  pronotum,  Ligurotettix  coquilletti  McN.  -distinctly 
though  rather  feebly,  Gymnes  punctatus  Scud,  -not  at  all.    Antennae  nearly  cylindrical 

or  somewhat  flattened,  (a);  -triquetrous.  Inner  spurs  of 
hind  tibiae  unequal,  Opeia  testacea  Scud,  -equal.  Front 
wings  longer  than  the  abdomen,  Horesidotes  cinereus 
Scud,  -shorter,  Napaia  gracilis  McN.  — (a)  Tempora  vis- 
ible from  above,  (&);  -not.  Fastigium  without  distinct 
median  carina,  Orphulella;  -with  distinct  carina.  Prono- 
tum with  distinct  lateral  carinas,  (Eonomus  alius  Scud, 
-without,  Amphitornus  ornatus  McN.  — (b)  Face  and  ver- 
tex as  seen  from  the  side  not  meeting  at  an  angle,  Plec- 
trotettix  patriae,  Scud,  -meeting  in  an  angle.  Temporae 
less  than  twice  as  long  as  broad,  (c);  -more.  Prozona 
longer  than  metazona,  Bruneria  shaslana  Scud,  -equal, 

Fig.  9.    Grasshoppers.  Stenobothrus oregonensis  Scud.  (Fig.  9,  B).   — (c)  Pronotum 

(A)  Telmatetti.r  aztecus  Saus.  shorter  than    the    head,   Eupnigodes  megacephala   McN. 

(B)  Stenobothrus oregonemis  Scud,     -longer.      Prozona    longer    than     metazona,     Aulocara 

elliotti  Thorn,  -shorter.  Tempora  visible  from  above 
only  on  the  inner  half,  Psolmssa;  -throughout  their  length,  Stirapleura  pusilla  Scud. 

Orphulella.  Median  area  of  front  wings  with  two  or  three  series  of  cells,  pelidna 
Burm.  -one.  Lateral  carina}  of  prothorax  divergent  before  and  behind,  affinis 
Scud,  -parallel,  compta  Scud. 

Psola'ssa.  Sides  of  pronotum  with  feeble  oblique  carinae,  texana  Scud,  -none, 
maculipennis  Scud. 

(Edipodinas. — This  subfamily  contains  quite  a  number  of  injurious 
species,  but  only  one  of  them  contributed  appreciably  to  the  injury  this 
year. 

Interspace  between  the  metasternal  foramina  broader  than  long,  (a) ;  -longer  than 
broad.  Hind  wings  bright-colored  at  base,  Arphia;  -not.  Middle  median  vein  midwajr 
between  the  others,  Chortophaga  brevipennis  Scud,  -nearer  the  anterior.  Head  com- 
pressed, Chimarocephala ;  -rotundate,  Encoptolophus  pallidus  Brun.  — (a)  Principal 
sulcus  distinct  on  the  sides  of  pronotum,  (c) ;  -feeble  or  wanting.  Pronotal  carina  very 
slight,  (6);  -conspicuous.  Pronotum  rough,  Hippiscus;  -smooth,  Camnula  pellucida 
Scud.  (Fig.  10,  D).  — (b)  Front  wings  shorter  than  abdomen,  Agymnastus  ingens  Scud, 
-longer,  Leprus.  — (c)  Pronotal  carina  twice  intersected,  (rf);  -once  or  not.  Costal 
margin  of  front  wing  thickened  nearly  to  the  tip,  Lactista  gibbosus  Saus.  (Fig.  10,  G); 
-apical  third  membranous.  No  band  on  middle  of  wing,  Dissosteira ;  -band  present. 
Crest  deeply  intersected,  Spharagemon  venustum  Stal. ;  -not,  Scirtetica  occidentalis 
Brun.  — (d)  Crest  deeply  intersected  between  sulci,  {e);  -not.  Pronotum  not  crested  in 
front,  Hadrotettix  mundus  Scud.  (Fig.  10,  F);  -crested.  Sides  of  metazona  narrowed 
beneath,  Derotmema;  -not.  Lateral  canthi  of  pronotum  bending  at  principal  sulcus  or 
absent  in  front,  Mestobregma ;  -not.  Posterior  veins  of  the  hind  wing  swollen  in  the 
middle,  Circotettix;  -not.  Crest  as  high  on  metazona  as  on  prozona,  Conozoa;  -not, 
Trimerotropis.  — (e)  Middle  independent  vein  evident,  Anconia  Integra  Scud,  -lacking 
or  feeble,  Heliastus. 

Arphia.  Facial  costae  not  convergent  above,  hesperiphila  Rehn.  -convergent.  Fas- 
tigium wider  than  long,  sulphurea  Fab.  (Fig.  10,  B) ;  -longer  than  wide.  Carina  on  prono- 
tum slightly  arcuate,  ramona  Rehn.  -not,  behrensi,  Saus. 

Chimarocephala.    Body  smooth,  behrensi  Saus.  -rough,  pacifica  Thorn.  (Fig.  10,  A). 

Hippiscus.  Carina  of  pronotum  intersected  by  two  sulci,  (a);  -by  one.  Spots 
obscure    on    tip   of   front  wing,  californicus  Scud,  -as   elsewhere,    marmoratus    Scud. 


grasshoppers:  insects  concerned. 


.17 


—(a)  Dark  crossband  on  hind  wings  near  the  apex,  (6) ;  -far  from  apex.  Metazona  two 
thirds  as  long  as  prozona,  zapotecus  Saus.  -twice  as  long,  pardalinus  Saus.  —(6)  Sides  of 
pronotum  slightly  widening  below,  neglectus  Thom.  -not.  Lateral  canthi  of  prothorax 
absent  on  prozona,  (c);  -present.  Markings  of  front  wings  obscure,  stigmosus  Scud, 
-distinct,  aurilegulus  Scud,  —(c)  Metazona  transversely  wrinkled  anteriorly,  lateritius 
Saus.  -not,  calthulus  Scud. 

Leprus.    Hind  wings  blue,  glaucipennis  Scud,  -yellow,  intermedins  Saus. 

Dissosteira.  Disk  of  hind  wings  black,  Carolina  Linn,  -only  obsoletely  spotted, 
spurcata  Saus.  (Fig.  10,  E). 

Derotmema.  Metazona  distinctly  broader  than  the  eyes,  saussureanum  Scud,  -scarcely 
broader,  delicatulum  Scud. 


Fig 


Grasshoppers. 


(A)  Chimarocephala  pacifica  Thom.  (E)  Dissosteira  spurcata  Saus. 

(B)  Arphia  mlphurea  Fab.  (F)  Hadrotettix  mundus  Scud. 

(C)  Conozoa  behrensi  Saus.  (G)  Lactista  gibbosus  Saus. 

(D)  Camnula  pellucida  Scud.  (H)  Circotettix  shastanus  Brun. 

(I)  Trimerotropts  pseudofasciata  Scud. 


Mestobregma.  Median  carina  of  pronotum  crested  between  the  sulci,  kiowa  Thom. 
-nearly  obliterated.    Front  lobe  cristate,  hyalinum  Scud,  -not  prominent,  rosaceum  Scud  . 

Circotettix.  Hind  wings  not  marked  with  black,  thallassinus  Saus.  -black  at  base , 
maculatus  Scud,  -black  band  across  the  middle.  Tip  blackish,  suffusus  Scud,  -mostly 
hyaline.  Front  wings  conspicuously  marked,  shastanus  Brun.  (Fig.  10,  H);  -obscurely, 
occidenialis  Brun. 

Conozoa.  Lower  hind  angles  of  the  sides  of  the  pronotum  rounded,  ivallula 
Scud,  -angulate.  Crest  of  pronotum  incised  on  prozona,  behrensi  Saus.  (Fig.  10,  C) ;  -not, 
sulcifrons  Scud. 

2— Bul.  142 


18-  UNIVERSITY    OF   CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT   STATION. 

Trimerotropis.  Front  wings  banded,  (a);  -not.  Sides  of  pronotum  toothed  beneath, 
coquillettii  McN.  -not.  Ground  color  pale  reddish  brown,  hyalina  McN.  -yellowish 
brown.  Prozona  of  pronotum  entire,  porrecta  McN.  -bilobate.  Crest  of  prozona  in 
dentiform  lobes,  rebellis  Saus.  -rounded,  albolineatus  Brun.  —(a)  Front  wings  with 
basal  and  median  bands  solid  and  equaling  following  clear  spaces,  (6);  -not.  Hind 
wings  hyaline,  pseudofasciata  Scud.  (Fig.  10,  I);  -with  indistinct  dark  band.  Spots  on 
front  wings  in  clouds  or  bands,  (c);  -evenly  scattered.  Hind  tibiae  blue,  fallax  Saus. 
-not.  Hind  wings  hyaline  beyond  the  dark  band,  variegata  McN.  -dark,  conspersa 
McN.  — (&)  Two  black  bands  between  the  eyes,  cincla  Thom.  -none,  Juliana  Scud. 
— (c)  Hind  tibiae  coral  red,  californica  Brun.  -whitish,  pacifica  Brun.  -obscure  yellow,  vin- 
culata  Scud,  -deep  brown,  pilosa  McN.  -blue.  Metazona  one  and  one  half  times  as  long 
as  prozona,  (d);  -twice.  Apical  part  of  hind  wings  hyaline,  coeruleipes  Scud,  -dark, 
calignosa  McN.  — (d)  Ground  color  white,  albescens  McN.  -brown  or  gray.  Fastigium 
with  median  carinas,  bifasciata  Brun.  -none,  koebelei  Brun. 

Heliastus.  Length  of  body  $  15  mm.  9  27  mm.,  aridus  Brun.  -much  less,  californicus 
Thom. 

The  insects  of  this  last  genus  are  commonly  attracted  by  electric 
lights  at  night.  Several  species  are  highly  injurious;  and  members  of 
the  smaller  genera  less  often  become  troublesome. 

Acridinx. — This  subfamily  contains  the  greatest  number  of  highly 
destructive  grasshoppers.  The  two  doing  the  greatest  injury  this  year 
were  (Edaleonotus  enigma  and  Melonoplus  devastator. 

Hind  tibiae  with  apical  spur  on  both  sides,  Dracotettix ;  -none  on  outside.  Face 
nearly  vertical,  (a);  -very  oblique.  Hind  tibiae  expanded  apically,  Paropomala;  -not, 
Arnilia  mexicana  Saus.  — (a)  Mesosternal  lobes  longer  than  broad,  Schistocerca ;  -equally 
long  or  broader.  Hind  tibiae  with  6-8  spines  on  outer  margin,  Dactylotum  variegatum 
Scud,  -at  least  nine.  Wings  entirely  absent,  Bradynotes;  -present.  Pronotum  with 
scarcely  a  trace  of  median  carina,  Poecilotettix  coccinatus  Scud,  -carina  present  and 
interrupted  between  sulci,  (Edaleonotus  enigma  Scud.  (Fig.  11,  B) ;  -distinct  and  equal  on 
pro-  and  metazona,  Hesperotettix ;  -feeble  on  prozona,  distinct  on  metazona.  Pronotum 
as  seen  from  above  narrowest  in  front,  Moloplus;  -as  narrow  at  the  principal  sulcus, 
Melanoplus. 

Dracotettix.  Median  carina  of  pronotum  scarcely  stronger  than  the  lateral,  plutonius 
Brun.  -distinctly,  monstrosus  Brun. 

Paropomala.    Front  wing  reaching  tip  of  abdomen,  virgata  Scud,  -not,  calamus  Scud. 

Schistocerca.  Pronotum  obtusangulate  behind,  (a);  -rectangulate.  With  dorsal 
stripe,  vaga  Scud,  -none,  carinata  Scud.  — (a)  No  dorsal  stripe,  shoshone  Thom.  -stripe 
present.    Hind  tibiae  coral  red,  venusta  Scud.  (Fig.  5);  -not,  alutacea  Harr. 

Bradynotes.  Interspace  between  mesosternal  lobes  considerably  wider  than  the 
lobes, satur  Scud.  (Fig.  11,  A);  -scarcely.  Pale  lower  portion  of  sides  of  pronotum  con- 
trasting with  dark  above,  referta  Scud,  -not,  obesa  Thom. 

Hesperotettix.  Front  wings  much  shorter  than  abdomen,  pacificus  Brun.  -equal  or 
longer.  Legs  green,  pratensis  Scud.  -buff.  Transverse  sulci  of  pronotum  marked  with 
black,  viridis  Thom.  -not,  festivus  Scud. 

JEoloplus.  Front  wings  longer  than  the  abdomen,  californicus  Scud,  -shorter, 
chenopodii  Brun. 

Melanoplus*  Front  wings  about  equal  or  longer  than  abdomen,  (c);  -much  shorter 
Cerci  broadest  beyond  middle,  (&);  -not.  Cerci  broad  and  short,  rileyanus  McN.  -at 
least  as  long  as  broad.  Subgenital  plate  short  and  broad,  various  Scud,  -distinctly 
narrower  than  long.  Cerci  gently  tapering,  gracilipes  McN.  -abruptly.  Front  wings 
longer  than  pronotum,  phcetaliotiformis  Scud,  -shorter.  Subgenital  plate  tuberculate 
at  tip,  fuscipes  McN.  -not.  Hind  margin  of  pronotum  emarginate  in  the  middle,  (a); 
-not.  Tapering  portion  of  cerci  about  as  long  as  basal  portion,  pinctus  Scud,  -about 
half  as  long.  Lateral  carinas  of  pronotum  distinct,  borckii  Stal.  -indistinct,  pacificus 
Scud,    —(a)  Color  ashy,  tenuipennis  McN.    -dark  brown,  missionum  Scud.    — (6)  Inter- 

*This  synopsis  refers  only  to  the  males;  the  females  in  this  genus  are  difficult  to  distinguish 
from  each  other. 


GRASSHOPPERS    IN    FORMER    YEARS.  19 

val  between  mesosternal  lobes  about  twice  as  long  as  broad,  ascensus  Scud,  -about 
square.  Subgenital  plate  longer  than  broad,  ablutus  Scud,  -short  and  broad.  Cerci 
about  as  long  as  supraanal  plate,  ligneolus  Scud,  -much  shorter,  nanus  Scud. 
— (c)  Cerci  broadest  beyond  middle,  (g);  -not.  Furcula  truncate  at  tip,  flavescens 
Scud,  -pointed.  Three  or  four  times  as  long  as  broad,  (d) ;  -not  over  twice.  Median 
groove  on  supraanal  plate  disappears  toward  the  tip,  atlanis 
Riley ;  -reaching  the  tip,  spretus  Uhler.  — (d)  Subgenital 
plate  narrowed  at  apex,  femur-rubrum  DeG.  -not.  Interval 
between  mesosternal  lobes  twice  as  long  as  broad,  (e) ; 
-about  half  as  long  as  broad.  Cerci  not  narrowing  toward 
the  tip,  ater  Scud,  -narrowed.  Cerci  sulcate  on  the  outside 
of  tip,  sierranus  Scud,  -only  dimpled,  consanguineus  Scud. 
—(e)  Front  wings  without  spots,  (/) ;  -spotted.  Pronotum 
with  distinct  pale  stripe  interrupting  the  black  band  on 
the  side  near  the  front  edge,  virgatus  McN.  -not,  devas- 
tator Scud.  (Frontispiece).  — ( /)  Whole  body  light  colored, 
uniformis  Scud,  -dark,  angelicus  Scud.  — (g)  Cerci  bifurcate  fig.  n.  Grasshoppers. 
at  tip,  (*);  -rounded.  Furcula  much  longer  than  its  seg-  (A)  Bradynotes  satur  Scud, 
ment,  (K) ;  -scarcely.  Supraanal  plate  suddenly  bent  down  (B)  (Edaleonotus  enigma  Scud, 
beyond    the    middle,  packardii  Scud,  -all  in    one    plane, 

marginatus  Scud.  —  (h)  Furcula  narrowing  uniformly,  cyanipes  Brun.  -sides  of  part  of 
the  tip  parallel.  Color  markings  feeble,  dealbatus  Scud,  -distinct,  cinereus  Scud. 
— (i)  Furcula  absent,  differentialis  Uhler ;  -present.  Interval  between  mesosternal  lobes 
less  than  twice  as  long  as  broad,  olivaceus  Scud,    -more,  femoratus  Burm. 

GRASSHOPPERS    IN    FORMER    YEARS. 

The  earliest  history  of  grasshoppers  in  California  appeared  in  Clavi- 
jera's  History  of  California.  He  noted  insects  as  injurious  to  Mission 
property  in  1722,  1746,  1747,  1748,  1753,  1754,  1756,  1766,  and  1767. 
His  account  of  these  insects  is  very  elaborate  and  interesting,  though, 
of  course,  full  of  errors  as  to  their  life  history*. 

After  these  dates  there  appears  to  be  no  record  of  grasshoppers  for 
half  a  century,  though  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  their  continued 
injury.  The  dates  during  the  rest  of  the  Spanish  occupation  of  the 
country  are,  1823,  1827  or  1828,  1834  or  1835,  1838,  1839,  and  1840f. 

After  the  American  control,  the  first  record  of  their  appearance  (omit- 
ting 1849,  mentioned  by  Taylor  without  locality)  is  in  June  and  July, 
1852,  in  the  marsh  lands  on  the  east  side  of  San  Francisco  BayJ,  which 
we  believe  is  also  the  latest  record  of  injury  by  hoppers  in  this  region; 
and  the  time  of  the  year  suggests  that  it  must  have  been  some  other 
species  than  the  one  now  dominant  there. 

In  1854,  on  the  Wolfskill  ranch  on  Putah  Creek,  and  on  the  Ameri- 
can River  near  Sacramento,  hoppers  became  troublesome,  and  there  was 
near  San  Jose  a  swarm  of  what  must  have  been  crickets,  covering  the 
ground  for  miles§. 

The  year  1855  witnessed  the  greatest  invasion  of  grasshoppers  that 
has  been  experienced  since  the  American  occupation,  at  least  in  the 

*  A.  S.  Taylor,  in  California  Farmer^  January,  1858,  p.  18. 
t  Ibid.    February,  1858,  p.  34. 

X  L.  G.  Yates,  in  first  report  U.  S.  Ent.  Comm.,  1878,  p.  451. 
§  Colonel  Warren,  in  California  Farmer,  August,  1854,  p.  52. 


20  UNIVERSITY    OF   CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT   STATION. 

cultivated  portion  of  the  State.  The  accounts  in  the  California  Farmer, 
the  Sacramento  Union,  and  the  Shasta  Courier  of  that  year,  show  that 
the  pest  did  its  greatest  injury  about  Sacramento,  though  it  extended 
all  over  the  State.  Much  injury  had  already  been  done  and  the  insects 
were  flying  in  great  swarms  as  early  as  the  middle  of  June,  and  migra- 
tions occurred  in  the  northern  end  of  the  Sacramento  Valley  as  late  as 
the  middle  of  September. 

Following  this  we  have  the  dates  1856  in  Mariposa  and  Fresno 
counties,  1859  in  Modoc  and  Sutter  counties,  1862  or  1863  in  Modoc 
County,  1866  or  1867  in  Stanislaus  County,  and  1869  in  Tulare  County, 
as  collected  by  the  U.  S.  Entomological  Commission*;  and  in  1857  when 
a  swarm  fell  into  Suisun  Bay  on  the  14th  of  Julyf.  In  1858  hoppers 
were  bad  in  Monterey  County,  and  in  Siskiyou  County  large  crickets, 
as  they  were  called,  appeared  in  June  and  JulyJ. 

The  remaining  dates  are  mostly  taken  from  the  Pacific  Rural  Press 
of  the  years  given,  and  from  records  in  our  office: 

1870,  in  Yolo  County; 

1871,  in  Tulare  County; 

1877,  in  Sonoma,  Sierra,  San  Joaquin,  Fresno,  Santa  Barbara,  and 
San  Diego  counties; 


1878, 
1879, 
1880, 
1882, 
1883, 
1884, 
counties 
1885, 
1886, 
1887, 
1888, 
1889, 
1890, 
1891, 


n  Sierra  County; 

n  Sierra  and  San  Joaquin  counties; 

n  Sierra  County; 

n  San  Luis  Obispo  County; 

n  Kern  County; 

n  Butte,    Sacramento,    El    Dorado,    Sonoma,    and    Mendocino 


n  Napa,  Yolo,  Sacramento,  Merced,  and  Fresno  counties; 
n  Yolo  and  Fresno  counties; 
n  Sacramento  County; 
n  Sacramento  and  Santa  Cruz  counties; 
n  Solano  and  Tulare  counties; 

n  Shasta,  Yolo,  Nevada,  and  Santa  Barbara  counties; 
n  Butte,  Sutter,   Sacramento,   San   Joaquin,    Stanislaus,   and 
Kern  counties; 

1892,  in  Tulare  and  Kern  counties; 

1896,  in  Kern  County; 

1897,  in  Glenn  County; 

1898,  in  Alameda  and  Santa  Clara  counties. 

These  dates  are  certainly  incomplete.     In  many  sections  grasshoppers 
are  so  common  that  they  do  not  cause  comment.     With  one  or  two 

*  1st  Report  IT.  S.  Ent.  Comm.,  p.  453. 

t  A.  S.  Taylor,  in  California  Farmer,  January,  1858,  p.  10. 

X  Ibid.    February,  1864,  p.  11. 


grasshoppers:  life  history.  21 

exceptions  we  do  not  have  access  to  any  of  the  southern  California  dates, 
but  know  that  they  are  often  troublesome  there.  That  which  is  given 
will  be  enough,  however,  to  show  that  grasshoppers  are  almost  con- 
stantly doing  damage  in  some  part  of  the  State. 

LIFE    HISTORY. 

There  is  yet  so  much  to  be  learned  in  regard  to  the  life  histories  of  the 
injurious  species  of  grasshoppers  in  this  State  that  no  very  satisfactory 
account  can  be  given.  The  process  of  egg-laying  has  been  observed  in  the 
case  of  certain  of  our  species  by  farmers  and  others,  but  no  accurate 
observations  have  been  made  as  to  the  manner  in  which  it  is  done,  nor  the 
places  chosen  for  this  purpose.  As  far  as  known,  our  species  have  simi- 
lar habits  in  this  particular  as  the  Melanopus  spretus,  which  is  the  most 
injurious  species  east  of  the  Rocky  Mountains,  and  which  has  been  very 
carefully  studied.  From  these  observations  and  the  distribution  of 
young  hoppers,  we  can  infer  that  uncultivated  land  is  almost  exclusively 
selected.  This  accords  also  with  what  is  known  of  the  habits  of  the 
injurious  species  of  the  Eastern  States.  It  is  likely  that  the  egg-laying 
period  extends  over  at  least  two  months,  being  probably  at  its  height, 
in  the  case  of  our  best  known  Melanopus  devastator,  about  the  first  of 
August  in  the  Sacramento  and  San  Joaquin  valleys.  In  some  localities, 
as  at  Berkeley,  egg-laying  does  not  commence  until  the  latter  part  of 
August  or  first  of  September. 

All  of  our  very  injurious  species  pass  the  winter  in  the  egg  con- 
dition, though  some  kinds  of  grasshoppers  are  hopping  about  all  through 
this  season.  The  hatching  of  the  egg  in  the  spring  has  never  been  care- 
fully observed  and  described.  The  very  young  hoppers  are  so  small 
that  they  usually  escape  attention.  The  time  of  hatching  probably 
varies  even  more  than  the  time  of  egg-laying. 

While  the  grasshoppers  are  young,  even  when  very  abundant,  they 
do  not  do  an  appreciable  amount  of  injury  to  grass,  upon  which  they 
chiefly  feed.  They  are  so  active,  moving  about  between  meals  and  dis- 
tributing their  attack,  that  any  one  plant  is  only  slightly  injured  at 
one  time,  and  is  generally  able  to  grow  rapidly  enough  to  keep  ahead  of 
the  work  of  the  hoppers.  Young  hoppers  do  not  seem  to  require  a  great 
quantity  of  food,  probably  because  of  their  rather  slow  growth.  During 
their  growth  they  change  their  skin  from  time  to  time,  probably  going 
through  this  process,  as  does  the  Eastern  species,  five  times  before  obtain- 
ing their  wings. 

Breeding-Grounds  in  California. — The  grasshopper  situation  on  this  side 
of  the  Rocky  Mountains  differs  very  decidedly  from  that  on  the  other. 
Here  there  is  really  no  plateau  region  corresponding  to  the  great  plains 
of  Colorado,  Montana,  and  Wyoming.     The  grasshoppers  that  do  injury 


22  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION. 

are  all  developed  within  the  State,  since  it  is  pretty  well  demonstrated 
that  the  hoppers  do  not  cross  the  high  Sierras  from  Nevada,  where  they 
are  also  destructive.  The  danger  from  hoppers  in  this  State  arises  from 
a  comparatively  narrow  strip  of  rolling  and  hill  land  used  for  pasture 
purposes.  This  forms  a  strip  bordering  on  the  east  of  the  Sacramento 
and  San  Joaquin  valleys,  and  to  a  less  extent  along  the  hills  of  the  Coast 
Range;  in  southern  California  along  the  hills  to  the  north  and  east  of 
the  cultivated  region.  These  breeding-grounds  are  nowhere  many  miles 
in  width,  and  present  a  considerable  diversity  of  conditions,  in  conse- 
quence of  which  the  hoppers  but  seldom  become  excessively  abundant 
over  any  considerable  area  at  one  time.  We  need  not  therefore  expect 
the  insects  ever  to  become  so  abundant  as  to  occur  in  such  overwhelming 
numbers  as  they  sometimes  do  on  the  other  side  of  the  Rocky  Moun- 
tains; but  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  also  true  that  with  our  diversity  of 
situation  and  of  species  we  may  expect  much  more  frequent  injury 
from  hoppers  than  will  occur  there.  This  will  come  to  be  more  and 
more  apparent  as  our  orchard  area  continues  to  expand,  for  at  present, 
as  in  the  past,  the  large  grain  fields  offer  a  partial  protection,  lying  as 
they  usually  do  between  the  breeding-grounds  on  the  pasture  lands  and 
the  orchards  where  the  most  serious  injuries  are  done.  As  fast  as 
orchards  replace  these  grain  fields,  the  danger  of  injury  from  the 
smaller  swarms,  which  in  times  past  have  been  held  back  by  the  pres- 
ence of  the  wheat  fields,  will  come  more  and  more  in  evidence. 

Drifting. — When  the  young  hoppers  are  unusually  abundant,  or  the 
food-supply  begins  to  dry  up  and  become  scarce,  they  are  forced  to 
move  about  more  than  usual  in  search  of  new  food,  and  this  they 
accomplish  by  jumping  and  walking  about.  The  direction  that  they 
pursue  is  entirely  a  matter  of  accident,  unless  it  should  happen  that  a 
gentle  wind  is  blowing,  in  which  case  they  will  all  be  seen  to  be  moving 
in  one  direction.  The  reason  appears  to  be  that  the  insect  dislikes  to 
stand  with  its  side  to  the  wind,  but  after  a  leap  will  turn  itself  about 
and  face  the  wind,  and  the  next  time  it  leaps  it  will  naturally  leap  in 
the  direction  from  which  the  wind  is  blowing.  While  walking  the 
insect  pursues  the  same  course.*  In  hollows  or  sheltered  places  the 
hoppers  will  gradually  accumulate  if  hopping  toward  the  wind,  so  that 
ultimately  instead  of  being  evenly  distributed  over  the  breeding- 
grounds  they  will  begin  to  gather  in  great  swarms.  These  will  rapidly 
eat  the  available  food  they  come  to,  and  will  be  forced  to  migrate  more 
continually  than  they  would  if  not  massed  in  swarms.  The  hoppers 
may  in  this  way  leave  their  breeding-ground  en  masse,  and  traveling 


*  There  appears  to  be  no  such  definite  rule  in  the  case  of  the  Eastern  species,  and  in 
the  East  the  direction  of  migration  is  considered  an  unsolved  mystery.  The  account 
given  here  accords  with  all  the  observations  made  this  year,  but  it  is  possible  that 
further  study  will  show  other  causes  that  may  at  times  determine  their  direction. 


grasshoppers:  life  history.  23 

straight  across  the  country,  devour  the  orchards,  vineyards,  and  orna- 
mental plants  that  may  come  in  their  way.  This  form  of  traveling 
should  be  distinguished  from  the  true  migration,  which  occurs  after  the 
insects  obtain  their  wings.  We  have  suggested  and  used  the  term 
"drifting"  to  distinguish  this  movement  from  migration  by  flight. 
Drifting  may  also  occur  after  many  of  the  insects  have  obtained  their 
wings,  the  insect  hopping,  walking,  and  flying  for  short  distances 
against  the  wind  in  the  manner  just  described. 

Migration. —  When  drifting  swarms  are  large  and  the  food-supply 
correspondingly  meager,  winged  grasshoppers  will,  under  the  proper 
atmospheric  conditions,  suddenly,  as  by  a  common  impulse,  rise  high  in 
the  air  and  travel  for  many  miles  in  a  dense  swarm.  This  is  the  true 
migration.  These  flying  swarms  are  the  ones  best  known  in  the  liter- 
ature of  grasshopper  work,  and  it  is  the  only  form  with  which  regions 
distant  from  the  breeding-ground  become  menaced  by  grasshopper 
invasions.  Exactly  what  conditions  cause  insects  to  rise  for  the  migra- 
tion is  not  well  understood.  Those  who  are  well  acquainted  with  the 
phenomena  in  this  State  have  described  the  condition  to  us  in  these 
terms,  "  When  the  hills  look  unusually  blue  the  hoppers  are  extremely 
liable  to  take  to  wing."  Usually  it  is  the  settling  of  the  insects  from 
the  sky  that  has  been  most  commonly  observed.  It  is  likely  that 
the  purpose  of  migration  is  entirely  identical  with  that  of  drifting,  with 
the  exception  that  under  the  peculiar  atmospheric  conditions  the  hoppers 
have  a  tendency  to  fly  unusually  high,  and  are  there  met  by  a  current 
of  air  which  will  sweep  them  down  over  the  valley  until  they,  for  equally 
poorly  understood  reasons,  decide  to  alight.  The  U.  S.  Entomological 
Commission  has  collected  an  immense  amount  of  data  in  reference  to 
the  flights  of  the  swarms  of  grasshoppers  of  the  species  Melariopus  spretus, 
but  is  not  able  to  determine  very  accurately  the  details  of  the  process, 
or  find  explanations  for  the  cause,  amount,  or  direction  of  the  motion. 
Only  in  a  general  way  it  appeared  that  hoppers  which  come  to  maturity 
in  the  higher  arid  regions  usually  fly  southeast  toward  the  valley  of  the 
Mississippi,  while  those  hatching  in  the  low  lands,  and  coming  to 
maturity  somewhat  earlier  because  of  the  warmer  climate,  usually 
migrate  in  the  opposite  direction. 

These  differences  in  direction  correspond  somewhat  with  the  prevailing 
direction  of  the  winds  at  the  times  of  the  two  sets  of  migrations.  The 
observations  in  this  State  are  still  extremely  meager,  and  the  distance 
between  the  center  of  the  Great  Valley  and  the  breeding-ground  is  so 
slight,  that  it  is  not  strange  that  we  have  not  recognized  here  any  dis- 
tinct return  migrations.  As  far  as  we  are  aware  the  hoppers  have  never 
developed  in  injurious  numbers  in  the  orchard  region,  and  we  are 
inclined  to  think  that  we  need  not  usually  fear  an  attack  a  second  year 
in  the  same  locality. 


24  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT    STATION. 

REMEDIES. 

Grasshoppers  are  insects  unusually  difficult  to  control.  They  often 
occur  in  such  overwhelming  numbers  that  it  is  really  impossible  to  do 
anything  that  will  be  effective.  Fortunately,  in  California  such  num- 
bers will  be  of  extremely  rare  occurrence,  on  account  of  the  very  lim- 
ited breeding-grounds  from  which  any  particular  swarms  may  come. 
While  they  will  not  with  us  be  so  absolutely  uncontrollable,  still  it 
remains  an  extremely  difficult  problem.  The  fact  that  a  method  very 
efficient  under  one  set  of  conditions  will  be  entirely  valueless  under 
others,  still  further  complicates  the  subject. 

We  can  recognize  three  very  distinct  sets  of  conditions,  each  of  which 
will  demand  an  entirely  different  programme: 

I.     Control  of  the  Flying  Swarms. 

When  grasshoppers  come  into  an  orchard  after  a  true  migration,  the 
difficulty  of  the  situation  lies  largely  in  the  suddenness  of  their  appear- 
ance, a  fruit-grower  often  being  quite  unaware  of  the  danger  before  the 
hungry  hoppers  have  descended  upon  his  crops.  Usually,  therefore, 
what  can  be  done  must  be  done  very  quickly.  Available  means  can  be 
grouped  under  the  heads  of  "Driving"  and  "Poisoning." 

1 .  Driving. — There  is  considerable  evidence  that  the  use  of  smudges, 
at  the  time  that  the  insects  are  alighting,  may  cause  them  to  pass  over 
and  beyond  the  protected  fields.  Usually  this  measure  will  not  entirely 
protect  the  fields  in  which  it  is  used,  and  becomes  less  and  less  effectual 
if  the  swarm  comes  slowly,  as  is  sometimes  the  case,  when  they  may  be 
for  hours  alighting;  or,  on  the  other  hand,  if  they  come  on  successive 
days.  In  either  of  these  cases  smudging  will  not  commonly  drive 
enough  away  to  be  of  material  benefit.  Under  favorable  conditions, 
swarms  may  in  this  way  be  so  dissipated  that  the  hoppers  will  not  be 
in  very  destructive  numbers  in  the  protected  field;  and  perhaps  if  the 
swarm  is  not  too  large  it  will  be  prevented  from  doing  material  injury. 

Since  so  many  of  the  swarms  in  the  State  are  of  small  size  the 
smudging  process  is  really  quite  an  important  addition  to  our  list  of 
available  remedies.  The  method  of  smudging  is  to  build  fires  on  the 
windward  side  of  the  fields  to  be  protected,  making  as  dense  a  smoke  as 
possible  and  so  placing  the  fires  as  to  keep  the  fields  as  completely  as 
possible  covered  by  the  smoke  of  the  smudge.  It  is  also  the  practice  to 
add  from  time  to  time  small  quantities  of  sulfur  to  the  burning  smudge- 
piles.  If  care  is  had  this  can  be  used  without  any  danger  to  the  trees. 
If  sulfur  is  used,  however,  it  should  be  clearly  understood  that  there  is 
more  or  less  danger  to  the  foliage,  especially  that  of  the  younger  plants, 
and  that  corresponding  care  must  be  exercised. 


grasshoppers:  remedies. 


25 


Another  driving  method  is  by  frightening  the  insects  out  of  the  field 
by  putting  in  a  gang  of  men  and,  beginning  on  the  windward  side, 
gradually  work  back  and  forth  across  the  field,  thus  scaring  the  hoppers 
ahead  of  them.     The  walking  of  the  men  through  the  field  may  be 


Fig.  12.    The  Use  of  Smudge  to  Protect  Vineyard. 


fmmmMBmm 

Fig.  13.    Application  of  Sulfur  to  Smudge  Fires. 

sufficient  for  this  purpose,  but  commonly  short  sticks,  to  each  of  which 
a  piece  of  cloth  is  attached,  are  used  to  frighten  them  more  effectively 
from  the  plants,  which  maybe  at  the  same  time  jarred  or  lightly  beaten. 
In  this  method,  as  well  as  in  the  smudging  method,  the  idea  is  not  to 
rid  the  orchard  completely  of  the  insects,  but  to  drive  out  sufficient 


26  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT   STATION. 

numbers,  so  that  the  remaining  hoppers  may  not  injure  the  plants  to  a 
serious  extent. 

2.  Poisoning. — In  addition  to  the  method  suggested  above,  more  or 
less  satisfactory  results  can  be  obtained  by  the  use  of  poisons,  either 
applied  as  a  spray  to  the  plants  or  in  the  form  of  poisoned  bran  mix- 
ture, described  below.  This  method  of  poisoning  will  not  be  as  effective 
against  winged  insects  as  it  is  against  the  drifting  swarms,  for  which  it 
was  originally  devised. 

Flying  insects  are  not  as  readily  attracted  to  the  bran  mixture  on  the 
ground  as  are  hopping,  insects.  They  are  quite  commonly  in  greater 
numbers  and  do  their  work  more  rapidly,  and  therefore  the  method  can 
seldom  be  depended  upon,  if  used  by  itself.  It  is,  however,  a  very 
useful  supplementary  measure  to  that  of  driving,  just  referred  to.  It  is 
possible  that  the  use  of  poisoned  paper  placed  in  the  vines  or  trees 
would  prove  much  more  satisfactory  than  the  bran  mixture,  which  of 
necessity  must  be  placed  chiefly  upon  the  ground.  At  least,  this  is  a 
point  well  worthy  of  investigation. 

The  paper  used  should  not  be  glazed;  newspapers  or  straw  paper 
would  be  good  for  the  purpose.  The  best  way  to  treat  the  paper  is  to 
unroll  it  on  the  ground  and  apply  the  poison  with  a  garden  sprinkling 
pot.  The  arsenic  should  first  be  dissolved  by  boiling  with  four  times 
its  weight  of  sal  soda,  and  then  mixed  with  molasses.  The  proportions 
are,  for  each  pound  of  arsenic,  two  gallons  of  water,  four  pounds  of  sal 
soda,  and  two  gallons  of  molasses. 

II.     Control  of  Drifting  Swarms. 

Cultivated  ground  immediately  adjacent  to  the  breeding-grounds  is 
always  more  or  less  subject  to  injury  from  drifting  swarms,  even  when 
numbers  are  not  sufficient  to  cause  the  true  migration.  The  hoppers 
go  into  the  fields  slowly  enough  when  drifting  in  this  way,  to  give 
plenty  of  time  for  the  farmer  to  plan  and  execute  the  defense.  The 
chief  difficulty  lies  rather  in  the  fact  that  very  often  hoppers  will  con- 
tinue to  drift  out  of  the  breeding-ground  for  weeks  at  a  time,  so  that  the 
fight  is  a  long  continued  one.  The  means  that  have  been  employed 
with  greater  or  less  success  against  drifting  swarms  consist  of  barriers, 
smudging,  sacking,  plowing-in,  poisons,  and  the  use  of  the  hopper-dozer. 

1.  Barriers. — A  great  many  plans  have  been  tried  to  prevent  the 
entrance  of  hoppers  from  breeding-grounds.  That  which  has  been  used 
on  the  largest  scale  in  other  countries,  though  we  believe  as  yet  not  used 
in  California,  is  fencing  them  out.  Usually  a  strip  of  cloth  a  yard  wide, 
reaching  to  the  ground,  will  be  found  an  effectual  barrier  as  long  as  the 
insects  are  wingless.  If  a  fence  is  used  there  should  always  be  other 
means  for  actually  destroying  the  insects,  because  otherwise  they  will  be 


grasshoppers:  control  of  drifting  swarms.  27 

able  to  climb  to  the  top  of  the  fence  and  hop  over.  The  use  of  the 
fence  then,  like  all  the  barrier  methods,  is  a  scheme  for  assembling  the 
hoppers  (thereby  making  their  destruction  easy)  rather  than  a  means 
effective  in  itself.  These  cloth  fences,  when  properly  managed,  are 
probably  the  most  effective  of  all  the  barrier  plans.  In  connection  with 
the  fence,  or  even  without  the  use  of  the  fence,  very  good  results  are 
obtained  by  the  use  of  furrows,  in  which  the  hoppers  will  accumulate 
and  may  be  destroyed  by  dragging  a  heavy  log  along  the  furrow. 
Very  commonly  this  furrow  method  is  used  without  fencing,  and  has 
proven  effective,  in  this  State,  in  a  few  cases  where  the  swarms  were 
small  but  dense.  The  furrow  should  be  plowed  deep,  with  its  steep  or 
land  side  toward  the  ground  to  be  protected;  and  it  requires  consider- 
able and  continuous  attention  to  prevent  the  hoppers  from  passing  over. 

2.  Smudging. — When  hoppers  are  not  too  abundant,  injury  has  some- 
times been  quite  avoided  by  the  use  of  smudging.  The  object  in  this 
case  is  to  scatter  the  insects  so  as  to  prevent  their  eating  up  the  imme- 
diate border  of  the  fields  adjacent  to  the  breeding-ground.  Very  com- 
monly one  or  two  rows  of  the  orchard  or  vineyard  will  be  destroyed  and 
the  trees  or  vines  beyond  remain  uninjured.  By  the  use  of  a  smudge 
the  hoppers  can  be,  in  part  at  least,  caused  to  move  on,  so  that  by  dis- 
tributing their  injury  no  trees  or  vines  will  be  seriously  eaten.  Young 
hoppers  do  not  "move  on"  as  readily  in  response  to  the  smudge  as  do 
the  winged  insects,  and  it  may  be  necessary  in  connection  with  it  to  jar 
them  from  the  trees  and  vines  upon  which  they  have  gathered. 

3.  Sacking. — In  almost  every  season  that  hoppers  have  appeared,  the 
sacking  method  has  been  resorted  to  with  varying  success.  Sometimes 
the  trees  have  died  within  the  covering,  sometimes  the  coverings  have 
proved  to  be  insufficient  to  keep  out  the  hoppers,  and  at  other  times  the 
plants,  while  appearing  all  right  at  the  time  the  sacks  were  removed, 
have  suddenly,  after  their  removal,  cast  their  leaves  and  lost  their  new 
growth,  if  not  dying  outright.  The  material  used  in  sacking  has  been 
extremely  variable,  being  sometimes  as  heavy  as  grain  sacks.  With 
our  present  knowledge  and  with  the  extremely  variable  results  obtained, 
it  is  impossible  to  make  any  definite  recommendation.  At  best  it  is  an 
expensive  operation,  and  will  probably  not  be  generally  resorted  to 
except  as  a  protection  to  plants  of  more  than  ordinary  value,  or  to  newly 
set  orchards  where  very  small  coverings  will  be  sufficient  to  inclose  the 
green  parts.  When  this  method  is  used,  injury  to  the  plants  can  be 
avoided  by  carefully  watching  the  conditions,  and  removing  the  cover- 
ing in  the  same  way  recommended  in  the  case  of  vineyards  plowed- 
under.  As  soon  as  there  is  the  beginning  of  any  sign  of  yellowing  of 
the  leaves  the  covering  should  be  removed  and  other  means  of  protection 
resorted  to.     Whether  there  will  be  any  of  this  yellowing  will  depend 


28  UNIVERSITY    OF   CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT    STATION. 

upon  the  condition  of  the  plant  and  of  the  weather  during  the  time  the 
covering  is  on. 

In  removing  the  coverings  the  death  of  the  plant  can  usually  be 
avoided  by  a  gradual  instead  of  a  sudden  removal.  Injury  in  a  case  of 
removal  is  usually  or  always  caused  by  the  tenderness  of  the  foliage  on 
the  new  growth,  induced  by  the  protection  afforded  by  the  covering.  If 
the  covering  is  gradually  removed,  and  the  plant  brought  into  the  out- 
side air  a  little  at  a  time,  the  leaves  will  slowly  adjust  themselves  to 
the  outside  conditions. 

4.  Plowing-in. — When  the  drifting  swarm  attacks  a  newly  planted 
vineyard  it  is  sometimes  possible  to  accomplish  good  results  by  covering 
the  latter  up  by  means  of  the  plow,  throwing  a  furrow  over  it  from  each 
side.  This  may  prove  perfectly  feasible  and  efficient  if  the  hoppers  are 
moving  in  a  distinct  swarm  and  the  source  of  supply  is  at  a  distance,  or 
so  located  that  the  hoppers  will  not  be  likely  to  continue  coming  for  a 
long  period. 

The  only  question  will  be  that  of  the  ability  of  the  vines  to  retain 
their  life  beneath  the  ground  long  enough  to  allow  the  hoppers  to  pass 
by.  The  vines  will  ultimately  be  killed  unless  uncovered.  The  length 
of  time  that  they  can  stay  underground  will  vary  according  to  the  tem- 
perature and  character  of  the  soil.  One  can  keep  watch  of  the  vines 
thus  plowed-under,  and  uncover  them  as  soon  as  he  sees  evidence  of  the 
beginning  of  injury.  If  by  this  time  the  hoppers  are  gone  or  have 
passed  on,  the  method  will  be  satisfactory. 

5.  Poisoning. — The  most  effective  means  for  killing  young  hoppers 
has  been  the  use  of  poisons.  The  method  most  commonly  used  is  the 
bran  mixture  containing  sufficient  arsenic  to  kill  them,  and  enough 
attractive  sticky  material,  as  molasses,  or  sugar  solution,  to  hold  poison 
on  the  bran.  The  formula  used  quite  extensively  this  year  was  bran 
forty  pounds,  molasses  two  gallons,  arsenic  five  pounds,  and  water  about 
six  gallons.  The  whole  was  very  thoroughly  mixed  and  applied  by 
means  of  a  spoon  or  paddle,  about  a  teaspoonful  at  the  base  of  each 
vine  or  tree.  The  formula  is  often  varied,  sometimes  by  using  twice  or 
four  times  as  much  arsenic,  but  the  amount  here  given  is  amply  suffi- 
cient to  kill.  Indeed,  it  would  probably  be  quite  as  effective  if  the 
arsenic  were  greatly  diminished  in  quantity.  The  most  important 
point  in  its  preparation  is  the  thorough  mixing  of  the  material.  The 
poison  may  be  well  stirred  into  the  liquid  used,  or  even  into  the  dry 
bran;  but  in  either  case  the  mixing  must  be  thorough  before  the  bran  is 
wetted,  for  otherwise  the  mixture  will  not  be  uniform.  The  best  method 
is  to  mix  the  ingredients  in  the  same  manner  that  mortar  is  hoed  or 
shoveled.  It  is  quite  probable  that  if  the  arsenic  were  first  dissolved, 
and  its  solution  used  in  mixing,  a  greatly  diminished  dose  of  arsenic 


grasshoppers:  control  of  drifting  swarms. 


29 


would  be  sufficient;  but  as  arsenic  is  cheap,  and  the  mixing  of  the  dry 
powder  is  so  much  easier  than  making  a  solution  that  will  require  boil- 
ing, it  is  likely  that  the  dry  arsenic  is  the  most  economical. 

In  the  use  of  this  mixture  it  is  well  not  to  lose  sight  of  its  poisonous 
nature.  Stock  are  particularly  liable  to  be  poisoned,  so  every  precaution 
should  be  taken  to  prevent  their  eating  it.  Hoppers  are  not  at  once 
killed  after  eating  it;  they  will  usually  show  no  effect  of  poisoning  for 
several  hours,  and  it  may  take  a  day  or  two  before  an  insect  that  has 
had  a  poisoned  dose  will  actually  die;  but  they  cease  to  eat  long  before 
death  occurs.  As  far  as  could  be  estimated  the  rate  of  dying  is  about 
as  follows:  after  twenty-four  hours,  one  quarter  of  the  hoppers  are  dead; 
in  forty-eight  hours,  nearly  one  half.  Others  continue  to  die  after  this, 
but  at  least  twenty-five  per  cent  apparently  fail  to  feed  upon  the  poison 


Fig.  14.    Dead  Grasshoppers  in  a  Hopper-Dozer,  Collected  in  a  Vineyard. 

at  all.  The  reduction  in  number,  even  if  it  should  not  be  over  one  half 
of  those  attacking  the  vines,  will  in  most  cases  be  enough  to  prevent 
the  destruction  of  the  latter.  When  the  hoppers  are  very  abundant  it 
will  not  do  to  depend  wholly  upon  any  one  method  of  treatment,  and 
so,  while  poisons  are  the  cheapest  and  perhaps  the  most  effective  single 
means  of  treatment,  it  is  advisable  to  supplement  it  with  other  plans. 

The  Use  of  the  Hopper-Dozer. — When  the  hoppers  are  excessively 
abundant  it  will  pay  to  use  the  hopper-dozer  in  the  orchard  or  vine- 
yard; it  may  be  necessary  to  make  one  of  especial  size  or  shape  for  this 
purpose.  It  may  be  useful  also  to  drive  the  hoppers  more  or  less  by  the 
use  of  the  cloth  on  a  stick,  as  described  above,  the  idea  being  to  cause 
the  hoppers  to  jump  from  the  trees  or  vines  onto  the  ground,  or  better 


30  UNIVERSITY   OF   CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT   STATION. 

still  onto  the  hopper-dozer  as  it  passes.  Quite  effective  work  was  done 
this  year  in  the  vineyard  by  three  men,  one  driving  the  dozer  and  two 
working  along  on  the  opposite  side  of  the  adjacent  rows  of  vines,  causing 
the  hoppers  to  jump  on  the  dozer.  The  use  of  the  hopper-dozer  in  the 
orchard  is  thus  much  more  troublesome  and  really  a  good  deal  less 
effective  than  in  meadow  or  pasture  lands,  but  will  undoubtedly  pay 
well  where  hoppers  are  more  than  usually  abundant. 

It  is  likely  that  hoppers  will  never  be  in  so  great  numbers  in  this 
State  but  that,  with  the  use  of  the  remedies  here  suggested,  they  can  be 
prevented  from  killing  orchard  trees  or  grapevines. 

III.     Control  in  Breeding- Grounds. 

It  is  probable  that  a  careful  investigation  of  the  life  of  the  insect  will 
show  that  in  every  part  of  California  it  is  entirely  possible  to  destroy 
the  insects  very  economically  in  their  breeding-grounds,  to  such  an 
extent  as  to  reduce  the  probability  of  injury  to  adjacent  fields  almost 
to  nothing.  Indeed,  it  seems  that  the  real  solution  of  the  problem 
toward  which  we  should  strive,  is  that  of  the  control  of  the  insect  in  its 
breeding-ground.  The  methods  that  have  been  employed  most  effect- 
ively have  been  plowmg  in  the  winter,  the  use  of  the  hopper-dozer 
while  the  insect  is  still  young,  and  burning  after  the  grass  becomes 
sufficiently  dry. 

1.  Plowing. — The  plowing  of  the  breeding-ground  is  the  favorite 
method  on  the  other  side  of  the  Rocky  Mountains,  where  work  against 
hoppers  has  been  longest  under  way,  especially  in  the  northern  part  of 
that  hopper  region.  It  is  found  that  plowing,  in  the  fall,  the  ground  in 
which  hoppers  have  been  observed  to  be  depositing  their  eggs  in  more 
than  usual  numbers,  almost  entirely  prevents  their  hatching  the  fol- 
lowing spring.  It  may  be  that  the  same  will  be  found  true  in  Califor- 
nia; certainly  the  observations  of  this  season  indicate  that  the  young 
hoppers  do  not  exist  in  grain  fields  or  winter-fallowed  land,  or  indeed 
anywhere  except  on  uncultivated  roadsides  and  pasture  lands.  The 
economical  use  of  this  remedy  requires  careful  observations  of  the  egg- 
laying  in  the  fall,  because  it  will  not  pay  to  plow  large  tracts  of  land 
only  slightly  stocked  with  hopper  eggs.  It  may  be  found,  indeed,  that 
this  method  is  only  applicable  to  roadsides;  but  its  efficiency  in  other 
regions  indicates  that  it  should  be  given  a  very  thorough  test  under  our 
conditions. 

2.  Burning. — Our  observations  of  the  burned  areas  this  year,  and  the 
uniform  testimony  of  those  who  have  burned  in  this  and  in  preceding 
seasons,  agree  as  to  the  thorough  efficiency  of  this  method  of  ridding 
breeding-grounds  of  grasshoppers.     The  method  can  not  be  used  early 


grasshoppers:  control  in  breeding-grounds. 


31 


in  the  season,  because  the  grass  is  not  dry  enough  to  be  completely 
burned  off,  and  the  hoppers  will  be  most  abundant  in  parts  of  the  field 
not  burned.  Indeed,  burning  can  not  be  used  until  the  hoppers  have 
already  begun  to  drift.  When  the  time  comes* for  burning,  therefore, 
it  must  be  done  at  once.     Usually  only  two  or  three  weeks  are  available 


Fig.  15.    Burning  the  Breeding-Grounds  to  Kill  Grasshoppers. 


Fig. 


16.    Field  After  Burning,  Showing  How  Completely  Bare  the 
Ground  is  Made. 


for  this  purpose  during  the  season.  Of  all  methods  of  hopper  control 
this  is  the  one  that  can  be  applied  most  readily,  and  large  areas  can  be 
very  quickly  treated  in  this  way. 

The  method  is  not  without  its  objections,  however,  the  chief  of  which 
is  probably  the  losses  covered  by  the  destruction  of  pastures.  As  to 
how  great  this  loss  is  there  is  difference  of  opinion;  some  claiming  that 


32  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT    STATION. 

it  really  amounts  to  very  little,  since  a  new  growth  will  take  place  as 
soon  as  the  rains  come;  and  some  pasture  lands  are  regularly  burned 
over  and  remain  well  stocked  with  grass.  Others  contend  that  unless 
the  rainy  season  is  particularly  wet  a  large  percentage  of  the  seed  in 
the  soil  will  fail  to  germinate,  and  that  the  destruction  of  the  seed  on 
the  surface  also  decreases  the  grass  to  such  an  extent  that  it  requires 
several  years  of  ordinary  rainfall  before  the  pastures  are  able  to  carry 
their  normal  quantity  of  pasturage.  Still  others  claim  that  even  if  the 
succeeding  season  is  unusually  good,  the  destruction  of  the  seeds  is  so 
great  that  the  pasturage  does  not  come  up  to  the  normal  for  several 
years.  It  is  probably  safe  to  assume  that  there  will  be  considerable 
loss  from  burning.  Indeed,  the.  action  of  the  railroad  companies  in 
settling  for  a  considerable  bill  of  damages,  in  case  of  the  accidental 
burning  of  pastures  from  sparks  from  the  engines,  is  very  good  evidence 
that  loss  is  produced. 

If  burning  is  adopted  as  a  method  of  fighting  grasshoppers  there 
should  be  ample  provision  made  whereby  those  whose  lands  are  burned 
over  are  indemnified  to  the  extent  of  the  loss  suffered.  We  are  inclined 
to  think  that  this  method  of  fighting  grasshoppers  should  be  adopted 
only  as  an  emergency  measure,  in  case  other  methods  fail,  and  only 
when  the  hoppers  are  in  such  great  numbers  as  to  constitute  a  very 
serious  menace  to  adjacent  fields,  or  when  the  area  is  so  large  that  there 
is  great  danger  of  flying  swarms  being  developed. 

3.  Hopper-Dozers. — The  use  of  the  hopper-dozer  upon  the  breeding- 
ground  is  a  method  which  at  the  present  time  promises  most  for  the 
control  of  grasshoppers.  There  is  a  long  period,  at  times  two  or  three 
months,  in  which  it  can  be  used.  The  cost  of  its  application  is  really 
very  slight.  Its  effectiveness  has  been  demonstrated  in  many  hopper 
regions,  though  never  extensively  used  in  California.  The  lands  in 
which  the  insects  appear  are  open,  rolling  ground  upon  which  the 
hopper-dozers  can  be  easily  used,  so  that  this  appears  to  present  the 
most  practical  means  of  hopper  control  at  our  command.  The  hopper- 
dozer  is  very  simple  in  construction,  consisting  of  a  shallow  galvanized 
iron  pan  of  any  convenient  dimension;  those  in  use  the  last  season 
under  our  directions  were  about  six  feet  long  by  three  feet  wide,  with 
the  edges  turned  up  about  one  inch.  These  pans  are  mounted  upon 
wooden  runners,  one  inch  thick,  shod  with  hoop  irons  beneath  and 
having  along  their  back  a  vertical  screen  of  cloth  intended  to  prevent 
the  hoppers  leaping  entirely  over  the  pan.  The  construction  of  these 
pans  will  be  very  clearly  understood  from  the  figures  on  page  33. 

In  the  bottom  of  the  pans  crude  oil  is  placed.  This  is  usually  pre- 
vented from  flowing  and  splashing  out  by  a  layer  of  cloth,  such  as  grain 
sacking.  In  front  of  this  apparatus  at  a  convenient  distance,  say  about 
a  foot,  there  is  hung  a  light  pole,  which  drags  upon  the  ground  and 


grasshoppers:  complete  control.  33 

frightens  the  hoppers.  As  they  jump  into  the  air  they  are  caught  upon 
the  pans  and  wetted  with  the  oil.  Very  often  they  again  hop  out  of  the 
pan,  but  will  usually  have  gotten  enough  oil  upon  them  to  cause  their 
death;  a  great  many  die  in  the  pans,  so  that  they  have  to  be  emptied 
and  new  oil  added  from  time  to  time.  The  amount  of  oil  used  is  really 
a  small  item,  however,  and  a  great  deal  of  territory  can  be  covered  in  a 
single  day.  It  is  better  in  using  the  hopper-dozers  to  have  a  number 
following  each  other  like  the  plows  in  the  gang-plow,  so  as  to  sweep 
large  swaths  across  the  field.  Under  favorable  circumstances  a  large 
percentage  of  the  hoppers  will  be  killed  by  once  going  over  the  fields. 
It  may  be  desirable,  however,  in  most  cases  to  repeat  the  operation  once 


Fig.  17.    Hopper-Dozers  for  Destruction  of  Grasshoppers. 

or  twice.  With  the  proper  inspection  of  the  breeding-grounds  in  the 
State,  and  the  use  of  hopper-dozers  under  competent  direction,  it  would 
seem  possible  to  entirely  control  the  insect. 

COMPLETE   CONTROL. 

The  hopper  question  can  not  be  considered  as  finally  settled  until  the 
insects  are  brought  under  practically  complete  control.  This  complete 
control,  as  already  indicated,  can  only  be  accomplished  by  attacking 
them  in  their  breeding-grounds.  Every  one  will  realize  that  this  is  a 
work  demanding  concerted  action,  and  that  individual  effort  can  not  be 
depended  upon  to  accomplish  the  result.  Usually  if  local  initiative 
be  depended  upon  the  fight  will  be  delayed  until  the  actual  injury  can 
be  seen,  when  it  is  too  late  to  accomplish  the  best  results,  and  what 
can  then  be  done  will  require  a  vastly  increased  expenditure. 

The  presence  of  hoppers  in  their  breeding-grounds  in  sufficient  num- 
3— Bul.  142 


34  UNIVERSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT    STATION. 

bers  to  cause  great  damage  when  they  drift  into  adjacent  vineyard 
lands  will  scarcely  injure  the  grass  of  the  pasture.  The  owners  of  these 
lands  can  hardly  be  expected  to  do  anything  when  the  amount  of  injury 
done  there  is  so  small  as  to  be  quite  out  of  proportion  to  the  cost  of 
the  destruction  of  the  hoppers.  Those  whose  properties  are  most 
menaced  should  bear  most  of  the  cost  of  the  extermination  of  the 
insects;  or  rather  it  is  a  matter  of  general  property  interest  that  should 
be  attended  to  by  the  district,  the  county,  or  the  State.  This  is  clearly 
recognized  in  other  States,  and  there  has  been  much  grasshopper  legis- 
lation. But  the  scheme  developed  in  another  State  would  not  be  likely 
to  fit  our  conditions  and  might  be  very  inappropriate. 

A  suggestion  that  has  in  several  instances  formed  an  important  item 
in  these  laws  is  the  offering  of  a  bounty  for  the  destruction  of  the 
hoppers.  This  plan  has  nowhere  proven  very  satisfactory,  and  this 
State  has  had  an  experience  with  bounty  legislation  in  another  matter, 
which  it  is  not  anxious  to  duplicate.  The  difficulty  with  this  plan 
arises  from  the  fact  that  while  it  is  continually  an  expense,  work  will 
never  be  done  thoroughly  enough  to  accomplish  the  results  aimed  at. 

A    PLAN    FOR    STATE    ACTION. 

A  plan  which  seems  to  meet  the  needs  of  the  case  in  California 
involves,  first  of  all,  an  ample  provision  for  the  careful  study  of  the 
breeding-grounds  and  habits  of  young  hoppers,  in  order  that  we  may 
know  which  are  the  places  where  the  hoppers  are  likely  to  become 
abundant,  and  where  we  can  prepare  to  take  measures  against  them  in 
the  seasons  of  their  unusual  prevalence.  This  provision  should  be 
made  at  once,  so  as  to  be  ready  for  the  next  season  of  hopper  injury. 
This  study  should  include  a  careful  mapping  of  these  grounds,  and  the 
preparation  of  a  working  plan  for  future  control  work. 

Hopper  Reporters. — The  knowledge  thus  obtained  should  enable  those  in 
charge  of  this  work  to  secure,  by  means  of  correspondents  in  each  locality, 
reports  which  would  give  early  information  of  the  first  appearance  of 
hoppers  in  unusual  numbers.  It  may  be  possible  to  ascertain  the 
localities  and  to  determine  the  kind  of  locust  which  is  liable  to  increase 
to  injurious  numbers  corresponding  with  the  character  of  the  season; 
and  thus  to  be  able  to  so  direct  the  observation  of  those  living  in  such 
localities  as  to  obtain  from  them  full  information  at  a  time  when  other- 
wise they  would  not  be  likely  to  observe  their  presence  at  all. 

This  securing  of  early  information  is  the  key  to  the  whole  situation, 
because  with  it  the  suppression  of  the  hoppers  can  be  planned  and 
executed  before  they  begin  to  do  any  injury  at  all.  It  will  be  impossible 
to  have  enough  trained  investigators  in  the  field  to  accomplish  much  in 
the  way  of  keeping  track  of  the  abundance  of  the  insect,  but  with  the 


grasshoppers:  plan  for  state  action.  35 

necessary  information  furnished  to  those  living  in  these  threatened 
localities,  there  is  no  reason  why  in  every  neighborhood  persons  could 
not  be  found  who  could  make  satisfactory  reports. 

Competent  Inspection. — The  information  secured  by  correspondents  in 
this  way  will  be  very  unsatisfactory,  unless  there  are  also  provided,  at 
the  same  time,  competent  inspectors,  who  will  visit  the  grounds  where 
hoppers  are  reported  as  being  in  excessive  numbers.  These  inspectors 
should  very  carefully  inquire  into  the  situation  and  determine 
accurately  the  relative  numbers  and  the  range  of  the  insects. 

If  this  is  done  early  enough  it  will  be  possible  to  plan  out  a  campaign 
which  will  enable  the  people  of  that  locality,  in  most  cases,  to  so  reduce 
the  numbers  that  the  danger  of  migration  will  be  nothing.  The  ability 
to  make  accurate  observations  in  this  matter  will  require  that  the 
inspector  making  this  final  inspection  shall  have  acquired  a  good  degree 
of  knowledge  of  the  conditions  of  the  insects  in  ordinary  years,  so  that 
he  will  not  be  misled  on  the  one  hand  into  thinking  that  the  hoppers 
are  not  in  dangerous  numbers,  or  on  the  other  hand,  into  suggesting  the 
expenditure  of  time  and  money  for  the  destruction  of  the  hoppers  when 
in  reality  there  is  not  sufficient  danger. 

Supervision. — After  this  knowledge  has  been  secured  it  will  be  neces- 
sary, in  order  to  produce  the  best  results,  that  the  efforts  that  are  made 
for  the  suppression  of  the  insects  shall  be  under  the  immediate  super- 
vision of  a  competent  officer.  The  need  of  careful  supervision  of  this 
work  arises  chiefly  because  in  this  way  the  most  economical  fighting 
can  be  done.  It  is  not  merely  a  matter  of  choosing  the  right  remedies, 
but  of  knowing  when  and  where  to  work  to  the  best  advantage,  and 
where  it  will  be  safe  not  to  make  any  effort  at  all.  There  is  no  doubt 
that  in  the  past  year,  where  burning  has  been  resorted  to,  a  great  deal 
of  the  territory  has  been  burned  over  that  had  no  sufficient  stock  of 
hoppers  upon  them  to  justify  any  kind  of  treatment.  If  left  to  local 
initiative  it  is  entirely  likely  also  that  expensive  methods,  like  that  of 
burning,  will  be  the  ones  usually  chosen  when  cheaper  methods  would 
be  equally  efficient. 

Local  Authority. — It  will  be  imperative,  if  the  hopper  situation  is  to 
be  controlled  in  the  State,  that  the  laws  be  so  amended  that  there  will 
be  definite  provision  giving  some  one  in  each  locality  the  power  to  con- 
duct the  local  fight  against  the  hoppers.  Perhaps  the  best  way  in  which 
this  can  be  accomplished  would  be  to  definitely  enlarge  the  powers  of 
the  county  horticultural  boards  and  specifically  make  it  their  duty  to 
look  after  the  hoppers  of  their  county.  This  has  worked  very  satis- 
factorily in  the  grasshopper  fights  of  other  States,  and  there  seems  no 
reason  why  this  machinery  already  created  in  this  State  should  not  be 
utilized  in  this  way.  There  will  really  be  no  need  of  creating  any  new 
powers,  but  merely  making  the  powers  we  have  now  for  fighting  scale 


36  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION. 

insects  apply  also  to  the  fighting  of  the  grasshopper  pest.  Of  course  it 
should  be  also  clearly  understood  that  in  this  matter  these  county  com- 
missioners shall  work  under  the  directions  of  the  competent  supervision 
insisted  upon  above. 

State  Authority. — The  experience  this  year  in  Sacramento  and 
adjacent  counties  shows  that  it  is  very  important  for  the  success  of  this 
work  that  there  shall  be  a  central  authority,  equally  powerful  with  the 
local  authority,  whose  duty  it  shall  be  to  undertake  work  where  adjacent 
districts  are  in  danger  and  where  the  local  authority  neglects  or  fails  to 
act.  '  As  the  horticultural  law  now  stands  there  is  no  one  who  has  any 
power  to  step  in  between  counties  and  prevent  the  inaction  of  one  result- 
ing in  a  loss  to  the  other.  When  the  horticultural  laws  were  framed 
the  insects  had  in  view  were  the  scales,  which  are  very  slow  and  poor 
migrants,  so  that  there  was  scarcely  any  danger  in  one  county  from  the 
neglect  of  the  authorities  of  the  other.  With  the  grasshopper  the 
situation  is  entirely  different.  This  matter  would  be  put  in  the  proper 
shape  if  the  State  Board  of  Horticulture  were  given  the  same  powers 
possessed  by  the  county  boards,  which  at  present  the  law  expressly 
denies  it. 

The  Plan  in  Brief. — In  all  this  work  it  should  be  clearly  recognized 
that  there  are  two  distinct  things  to  be  provided  for: 

1.  Investigators  who  will  secure  data  regarding  the  hoppers,  direct 
those  charged  with  their  destruction,  and  advise  regarding  the  best 
means  to  pursue — in  short,  to  serve  as  a  source  of  information. 

2.  An  executive  body  with  the  legal  power  to  enter  premises  and  to 
do  everything  needful  to  accomplish  the  destruction  of  these  pests. 

It  is  a  good  thing  to  keep  these  two  functions  entirely  distinct.  For 
the  latter,  a  very  slight  modification,  as  suggested  above,  of  the  laws 
relative  to  our  Boards  of  Horticulture  would  provide  a  very  satisfactory 
machinery  for  accomplishing  the  results.  For  the  former  work  there 
,might  be  established,  as  is  done  in  many  of  the  other  States  afflicted 
with  grasshoppers,  an  office  of  State  Entomologist,  whose  duty  it  would 
be  to  investigate  injurious  insects  and  to  distribute  the  information, 
particularly  that  of  fighting  grasshoppers.  In  some  cases  this  officer  is 
also  the  Entomologist  of  the  Experiment  Station,  but  when  this  is  the 
case  it  is  recognized  that  the  work  is  not  wholly  such  as  would  be  suit- 
able to  be  classed  as  Experiment  Station  work;  so  that  in  every  State 
where  this  connection  is  maintained  provision  is  made  for  the  extra 
work  by  suitable  appropriation  to  cover  the  cost  of  such  investigations. 

California  is  the  only  State  among  those  affected  by  grasshoppers,  in 
which  there  is  hope  for  the  complete  control.  Such  control  does  seem 
quite  possible  here,  if  adequate  means  are  employed  to  accomplish  it,, 
following  more  or  less  the  lines  suggested  above. 


